<?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>2009 (7) TMI 224 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75119</link>
    <description>An appeal returned for rectification of a court fee stamp defect was treated as having been presented within the statutory period, so the later refiling after correction did not constitute delay in filing. The finding that the appeal was time-barred was therefore unsustainable. The dismissal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after waiving pre-deposit and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 224 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75119</link>
      <description>An appeal returned for rectification of a court fee stamp defect was treated as having been presented within the statutory period, so the later refiling after correction did not constitute delay in filing. The finding that the appeal was time-barred was therefore unsustainable. The dismissal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after waiving pre-deposit and granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75119</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>