<?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>1999 (11) TMI 462 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94657</link>
    <description>Limitation for filing an appeal was to be computed from the date the demand was quantified and communicated, because the assessee could effectively challenge the matter only after that communication. Prior stay proceedings in the same matter also indicated that the delay had already been treated as condoned. On that basis, the appeal was not time-barred and was remitted for disposal on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 17:44:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 462 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94657</link>
      <description>Limitation for filing an appeal was to be computed from the date the demand was quantified and communicated, because the assessee could effectively challenge the matter only after that communication. Prior stay proceedings in the same matter also indicated that the delay had already been treated as condoned. On that basis, the appeal was not time-barred and was remitted for disposal on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>