<?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>2004 (3) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by directing a re-examination with the assistance of AD (Cost) beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Such direction was deemed impermissible as it amounted to commencing fresh proceedings based on unmentioned material. The Tribunal set aside the order, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence and natural justice in administrative and appellate processes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:47:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by directing a re-examination with the assistance of AD (Cost) beyond the scope of the show cause notice. Such direction was deemed impermissible as it amounted to commencing fresh proceedings based on unmentioned material. The Tribunal set aside the order, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence and natural justice in administrative and appellate processes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>