<?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 (12) TMI 623 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254280</link>
    <description>Where an appeal had been dismissed for want of Committee on Disputes clearance, restoration was allowed because the Committee had not considered the clearance application at all. The Tribunal relied on the Board&#039;s clarification that, in such a situation, the appeal could still be pursued without requiring prior permission from the Committee. The restoration application was therefore allowed, and the appeal, together with any stay application, was restored to its original number for hearing in due course.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:50:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 623 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254280</link>
      <description>Where an appeal had been dismissed for want of Committee on Disputes clearance, restoration was allowed because the Committee had not considered the clearance application at all. The Tribunal relied on the Board&#039;s clarification that, in such a situation, the appeal could still be pursued without requiring prior permission from the Committee. The restoration application was therefore allowed, and the appeal, together with any stay application, was restored to its original number for hearing in due course.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>