<?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>1996 (2) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85069</link>
    <description>Non-affixation of court-fee stamp on the copy of the order-in-original was treated as a remediable procedural defect, and the appeal should not have been rejected without first giving the assessee an opportunity to cure it. The dismissal was therefore held improper, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for rectification of the defect and hearing on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:03:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122136" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 258 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85069</link>
      <description>Non-affixation of court-fee stamp on the copy of the order-in-original was treated as a remediable procedural defect, and the appeal should not have been rejected without first giving the assessee an opportunity to cure it. The dismissal was therefore held improper, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for rectification of the defect and hearing on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>