<?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>2001 (7) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50997</link>
    <description>An unsigned show cause notice was challenged as invalid, and that jurisdictional objection had to be decided before any merits determination. Because the adjudicating authority failed to record a finding on the notice&#039;s validity, it ignored a material issue going to the root of the proceedings. The order was therefore unsustainable, was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant and first ruling on whether the notice was valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 12:30:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50997</link>
      <description>An unsigned show cause notice was challenged as invalid, and that jurisdictional objection had to be decided before any merits determination. Because the adjudicating authority failed to record a finding on the notice&#039;s validity, it ignored a material issue going to the root of the proceedings. The order was therefore unsustainable, was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant and first ruling on whether the notice was valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50997</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>