<?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 (9) TMI 418 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120116</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application challenging an order indicating remand with consent, as the appellant failed to promptly object during the initial pronouncement and did not demonstrate prejudice or clerical errors. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely objections and substantive grounds for modifications, ultimately rejecting the application for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 10:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157112" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 418 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120116</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application challenging an order indicating remand with consent, as the appellant failed to promptly object during the initial pronouncement and did not demonstrate prejudice or clerical errors. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely objections and substantive grounds for modifications, ultimately rejecting the application for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>