<?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>2006 (2) TMI 383 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117485</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as it was filed beyond the permissible time limit under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the limitation issue, based on precedents set by the Supreme Court. The plea for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing the lack of provision for such condonation under Section 35E(4). Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 27-2-2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:48:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154482" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 383 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117485</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as it was filed beyond the permissible time limit under Section 35E(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that the appeal was not maintainable due to the limitation issue, based on precedents set by the Supreme Court. The plea for condonation of delay was rejected, emphasizing the lack of provision for such condonation under Section 35E(4). Consequently, the Tribunal did not address the merits of the case, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed on 27-2-2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>