<?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>2010 (5) TMI 199 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77244</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing the Department&#039;s appeal for interest recovery under Section 11AB was dismissed. The objection on the Department&#039;s unverified appeal lacked substance as verification rules for Department appeals differ from those for Tribunal appeals. Legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable, emphasizing adherence to specific appeal procedures. The dismissal highlighted the importance of compliance with prescribed procedures for Department appeals and the limited applicability of certain legal precedents in distinct contexts. The application for stay was also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115415" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 199 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77244</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order allowing the Department&#039;s appeal for interest recovery under Section 11AB was dismissed. The objection on the Department&#039;s unverified appeal lacked substance as verification rules for Department appeals differ from those for Tribunal appeals. Legal precedents cited were deemed inapplicable, emphasizing adherence to specific appeal procedures. The dismissal highlighted the importance of compliance with prescribed procedures for Department appeals and the limited applicability of certain legal precedents in distinct contexts. The application for stay was also rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77244</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>