<?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>1987 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72974</link>
    <description>Where no rule authorises filing of an appeal by post, an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act is filed only when it is actually received in the appellate authority&#039;s office, not when it is posted. Applying that principle, the Tribunal treated the date of receipt as the filing date, found the appeal received one day after the limitation period expired, and held it barred by time. The rejection of the appeal as time-barred was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 12:47:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111253" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 139 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72974</link>
      <description>Where no rule authorises filing of an appeal by post, an appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act is filed only when it is actually received in the appellate authority&#039;s office, not when it is posted. Applying that principle, the Tribunal treated the date of receipt as the filing date, found the appeal received one day after the limitation period expired, and held it barred by time. The rejection of the appeal as time-barred was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72974</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>