<?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>2015 (5) TMI 660 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259786</link>
    <description>The Court set aside the Settlement Commission&#039;s order declining to consider the petitioners&#039; application under section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the importance of notifying the parties before considering such bars and remanded the matter for reconsideration, ensuring all parties are given an opportunity to proceed with the settlement application as initially decided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 660 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259786</link>
      <description>The Court set aside the Settlement Commission&#039;s order declining to consider the petitioners&#039; application under section 32-O(1)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized the importance of notifying the parties before considering such bars and remanded the matter for reconsideration, ensuring all parties are given an opportunity to proceed with the settlement application as initially decided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259786</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>