<?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>2002 (7) TMI 195 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51605</link>
    <description>An order detaining excisable goods, raw material, plant and machinery under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as appealable. The Tribunal noted that the Allahabad High Court had already held such detention orders to be appealable and no contrary authority was cited. On that basis, the rejection of the appeal as not maintainable could not stand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to reconsider the matter on merits after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:10:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 195 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51605</link>
      <description>An order detaining excisable goods, raw material, plant and machinery under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules was treated as appealable. The Tribunal noted that the Allahabad High Court had already held such detention orders to be appealable and no contrary authority was cited. On that basis, the rejection of the appeal as not maintainable could not stand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to reconsider the matter on merits after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>