<?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 (11) TMI 479 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120679</link>
    <description>An appeal under the Central Excise Act was treated as barred from admission because the duty, penalty or other amount in dispute fell below the statutory monetary threshold in the second proviso to Section 35B. The same monetary-limit bar was applied to the request for restoration, since no separate ground was shown to reopen the dismissed appeal on merits. The restoration application was therefore rejected, and the earlier dismissal remained undisturbed on maintainability grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 14:44:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 479 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120679</link>
      <description>An appeal under the Central Excise Act was treated as barred from admission because the duty, penalty or other amount in dispute fell below the statutory monetary threshold in the second proviso to Section 35B. The same monetary-limit bar was applied to the request for restoration, since no separate ground was shown to reopen the dismissed appeal on merits. The restoration application was therefore rejected, and the earlier dismissal remained undisturbed on maintainability grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>