<?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 (6) TMI 317 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107870</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the applications seeking rectification of a mistake in its Final Order regarding the maintainability of appeals based on assessments finalized on the Bill of Entry without filing an appeal. The Tribunal found no patent error on the face of the record, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record should not involve debatable points of law. The Tribunal concluded that the original decision to dismiss the appeals based on the failure to challenge the assessment on the Bill of Entry was a matter of interpretation, not a clear mistake, and therefore upheld its decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:21:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 317 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107870</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the applications seeking rectification of a mistake in its Final Order regarding the maintainability of appeals based on assessments finalized on the Bill of Entry without filing an appeal. The Tribunal found no patent error on the face of the record, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that a mistake apparent from the record should not involve debatable points of law. The Tribunal concluded that the original decision to dismiss the appeals based on the failure to challenge the assessment on the Bill of Entry was a matter of interpretation, not a clear mistake, and therefore upheld its decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107870</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>