<?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>2000 (5) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50293</link>
    <description>A Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to dismiss a department&#039;s appeal for non-appearance or non-prosecution unless a statute or rule expressly authorises that course. Where no legal provision requires representation before the appellate authority, the appeal must be decided on merits despite absence of either side. The dismissal for non-appearance was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:39:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50293</link>
      <description>A Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to dismiss a department&#039;s appeal for non-appearance or non-prosecution unless a statute or rule expressly authorises that course. Where no legal provision requires representation before the appellate authority, the appeal must be decided on merits despite absence of either side. The dismissal for non-appearance was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>