<?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 (3) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50414</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Addl. Commissioner, remanding the case for further examination. Legal arguments raised highlighted procedural irregularities, evidentiary issues, and jurisdictional concerns, leading to the appeals being allowed for remand to ensure a fair reconsideration of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:39:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 160 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50414</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the order due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Addl. Commissioner, remanding the case for further examination. Legal arguments raised highlighted procedural irregularities, evidentiary issues, and jurisdictional concerns, leading to the appeals being allowed for remand to ensure a fair reconsideration of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50414</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>