<?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>1985 (7) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72141</link>
    <description>Where a statute does not expressly permit filing an appeal by post, the appeal is treated as filed only on actual receipt by the appellate authority, not on the date of posting. Applying that principle to the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Tribunal held that the governing rule was receipt, not dispatch, and that the point had already been settled by the Supreme Court. The request for reference to the High Court was therefore not maintainable, and the application failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 15:40:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 226 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72141</link>
      <description>Where a statute does not expressly permit filing an appeal by post, the appeal is treated as filed only on actual receipt by the appellate authority, not on the date of posting. Applying that principle to the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Tribunal held that the governing rule was receipt, not dispatch, and that the point had already been settled by the Supreme Court. The request for reference to the High Court was therefore not maintainable, and the application failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>