<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1001 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126558</link>
    <description>Appeals before CESTAT Kolkata were required to be filed in the prescribed form, with grounds set out under distinct heads and the memorandum signed and verified by the applicant or an authorised principal officer. As the memoranda of appeal were submitted without signature or verification, the mandatory procedural requirement was not met. The appeals were therefore held not maintainable and dismissed for non-compliance with the Tribunal procedure rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:21:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1001 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126558</link>
      <description>Appeals before CESTAT Kolkata were required to be filed in the prescribed form, with grounds set out under distinct heads and the memorandum signed and verified by the applicant or an authorised principal officer. As the memoranda of appeal were submitted without signature or verification, the mandatory procedural requirement was not met. The appeals were therefore held not maintainable and dismissed for non-compliance with the Tribunal procedure rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>