<?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>2002 (10) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105765</link>
    <description>For proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, the one-year limitation for a review order runs from the date the adjudication order is signed, and not from any later date of receipt or copying. The Limitation Act cannot be invoked to exclude time taken for obtaining a copy of the order. On these facts, the review direction passed after one year was time-barred, and the challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 14:51:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 385 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105765</link>
      <description>For proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, the one-year limitation for a review order runs from the date the adjudication order is signed, and not from any later date of receipt or copying. The Limitation Act cannot be invoked to exclude time taken for obtaining a copy of the order. On these facts, the review direction passed after one year was time-barred, and the challenge to the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>