<?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 (9) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216577</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds, remanding the matter for fresh determination of the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal emphasized that dispatch via speed post does not automatically imply receipt without proof of delivery, citing a previous judgment. The appeal was allowed for further proceedings through remand, following legal principles established in the earlier judgment by the Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189957" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216577</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds, remanding the matter for fresh determination of the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal emphasized that dispatch via speed post does not automatically imply receipt without proof of delivery, citing a previous judgment. The appeal was allowed for further proceedings through remand, following legal principles established in the earlier judgment by the Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>