<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1182 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209808</link>
    <description>An appeal against a communication issued as a letter, rather than an appealable order, was held not maintainable. The record also showed that the appeal was filed long after the communication relied upon by the department, so the limitation objection was accepted. On these facts, both the maintainability challenge and the delay objection succeeded, and the appeal could not be entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1182 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209808</link>
      <description>An appeal against a communication issued as a letter, rather than an appealable order, was held not maintainable. The record also showed that the appeal was filed long after the communication relied upon by the department, so the limitation objection was accepted. On these facts, both the maintainability challenge and the delay objection succeeded, and the appeal could not be entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209808</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>