<?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>2012 (4) TMI 141 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211817</link>
    <description>The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not barred by limitation because it was filed on the next working day after the due date, so no delay arose. As the dispute had not been decided on merits, the proper course was remand. The dismissal for delay could not stand, and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the stay petition and appeal after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (4) TMI 141 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211817</link>
      <description>The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not barred by limitation because it was filed on the next working day after the due date, so no delay arose. As the dispute had not been decided on merits, the proper course was remand. The dismissal for delay could not stand, and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration of the stay petition and appeal after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>