<?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 (9) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251814</link>
    <description>Service of an Order-in-Original must comply with the prescribed statutory method before limitation for an appeal begins. Dispatch by registered post without acknowledgement due was insufficient, and later delivery was not established because the available covering letter and employee initials did not prove enclosure and delivery of the order. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore within time. Following remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to independently adjudicate the merits; mere agreement with an earlier appellate order was not a merits determination. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=366020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251814</link>
      <description>Service of an Order-in-Original must comply with the prescribed statutory method before limitation for an appeal begins. Dispatch by registered post without acknowledgement due was insufficient, and later delivery was not established because the available covering letter and employee initials did not prove enclosure and delivery of the order. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore within time. Following remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to independently adjudicate the merits; mere agreement with an earlier appellate order was not a merits determination. The appellate order was set aside and remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>