<?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>2003 (3) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107370</link>
    <description>Where the challenged order is the first speaking order communicating the adjudication and expressly stating that an appeal lies within three months from its communication, limitation must be counted from that communication. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:53:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144387" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 429 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107370</link>
      <description>Where the challenged order is the first speaking order communicating the adjudication and expressly stating that an appeal lies within three months from its communication, limitation must be counted from that communication. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The dismissal was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision on merits after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107370</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>