<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2007 (8) TMI 365 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49055</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that an appeal filed by a Commissioner of Central Excise himself, not through an authorized Central Excise Officer, is maintainable under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. They further stated that any defect in such filing is curable. The reference was answered accordingly on 27-8-07.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 09:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 365 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49055</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that an appeal filed by a Commissioner of Central Excise himself, not through an authorized Central Excise Officer, is maintainable under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act. They further stated that any defect in such filing is curable. The reference was answered accordingly on 27-8-07.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49055</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>