<?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 (5) TMI 35 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212975</link>
    <description>An appeal dismissed solely as time-barred does not result in merger of the original order with the appellate order because merger requires an appellate decision on merits. Where the first appellate forum rejects the appeal only for limitation and the delay is not condoned, there is no affirmance on substance and the higher forum cannot insist on a merits-based examination merely on that basis. The doctrine of merger therefore did not apply, and the assessee was not entitled to a merits decision in the second appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2023 12:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 35 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212975</link>
      <description>An appeal dismissed solely as time-barred does not result in merger of the original order with the appellate order because merger requires an appellate decision on merits. Where the first appellate forum rejects the appeal only for limitation and the delay is not condoned, there is no affirmance on substance and the higher forum cannot insist on a merits-based examination merely on that basis. The doctrine of merger therefore did not apply, and the assessee was not entitled to a merits decision in the second appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>