<?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 (11) TMI 242 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53706</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that under Section 129D(2), the authority who passed the Order-in-Original must file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner of Customs authorized the Assistant Commissioner, who did not pass the original order, the appeal was deemed non-compliant. Relying on relevant case law, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:56:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92183" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (11) TMI 242 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53706</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that under Section 129D(2), the authority who passed the Order-in-Original must file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Commissioner of Customs authorized the Assistant Commissioner, who did not pass the original order, the appeal was deemed non-compliant. Relying on relevant case law, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>