<?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 (9) TMI 409 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76361</link>
    <description>A defect in the signing of an appeal memo was treated as a curable irregularity, and the matter could ordinarily have been remitted for rectification. However, the decisive point was that no appeal lay before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the circumstances, so restoration would have served no useful purpose. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petition was disposed of without setting aside the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=114575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (9) TMI 409 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76361</link>
      <description>A defect in the signing of an appeal memo was treated as a curable irregularity, and the matter could ordinarily have been remitted for rectification. However, the decisive point was that no appeal lay before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the circumstances, so restoration would have served no useful purpose. The challenge was therefore not entertained on merits, and the petition was disposed of without setting aside the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>