<?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 (1) TMI 374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77518</link>
    <description>Refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority-in-original for fresh consideration on the merits. The rival contentions were expressly left open, and the amount deposited by the petitioner was directed to remain with the revenue until final adjudication. The operative effect is that the delay issue no longer stands as a final bar, while the underlying dispute remains to be decided afresh by the competent authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 374 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77518</link>
      <description>Refusal to condone delay was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the authority-in-original for fresh consideration on the merits. The rival contentions were expressly left open, and the amount deposited by the petitioner was directed to remain with the revenue until final adjudication. The operative effect is that the delay issue no longer stands as a final bar, while the underlying dispute remains to be decided afresh by the competent authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77518</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>