<?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 (3) TMI 867 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245419</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake as it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of six months under Section 35C(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the department&#039;s argument for condonation of delay based on principles of natural justice and the High Court&#039;s grant of &quot;liberty to adopt remedy,&quot; the Tribunal held that such liberty does not extend the period of limitation. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits, the Tribunal deemed the application time-barred and consequently dismissed it, aligning with previous decisions and highlighting the exceptional nature of certain judgments cited by the department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2014 10:12:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 867 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245419</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification of mistake as it was filed beyond the statutory time limit of six months under Section 35C(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite the department&#039;s argument for condonation of delay based on principles of natural justice and the High Court&#039;s grant of &quot;liberty to adopt remedy,&quot; the Tribunal held that such liberty does not extend the period of limitation. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits, the Tribunal deemed the application time-barred and consequently dismissed it, aligning with previous decisions and highlighting the exceptional nature of certain judgments cited by the department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>