<?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 (10) TMI 315 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120289</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that the provision applies when the order is passed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner, not by the Commissioner himself. The appeal filed by the Commissioner was deemed time-barred as it exceeded the limitation period, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals. The decision highlighted that the appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period set by the statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 12:37:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 315 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120289</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the interpretation of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962. It clarified that the provision applies when the order is passed by an officer subordinate to the Commissioner, not by the Commissioner himself. The appeal filed by the Commissioner was deemed time-barred as it exceeded the limitation period, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals. The decision highlighted that the appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period set by the statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>