<?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>2014 (1) TMI 92 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241867</link>
    <description>A second restoration application was held not maintainable where an earlier restoration plea had already been rejected on the same relief. The Tribunal also found no basis to restore the appeal because the Committee on Disputes had not granted permission to pursue it, and later Board instructions did not assist the applicant since the COD proceedings had already concluded by the recorded meeting minutes. The earlier order was therefore not recalled, and restoration was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2014 08:19:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=341531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 92 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241867</link>
      <description>A second restoration application was held not maintainable where an earlier restoration plea had already been rejected on the same relief. The Tribunal also found no basis to restore the appeal because the Committee on Disputes had not granted permission to pursue it, and later Board instructions did not assist the applicant since the COD proceedings had already concluded by the recorded meeting minutes. The earlier order was therefore not recalled, and restoration was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>