<?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 (9) TMI 1412 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180866</link>
    <description>A tribunal order pronounced more than six months after conclusion of hearing was treated as unsustainable because the governing procedural direction required matters not decided within that period to be deemed not heard and listed afresh with prior approval. The court relied on the admitted delay, found a clear breach of the prescribed time limit, and set aside and quashed the delayed order. The merits of the dispute were not examined, and the matter was directed to be placed before a bench for fresh hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422425" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1412 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180866</link>
      <description>A tribunal order pronounced more than six months after conclusion of hearing was treated as unsustainable because the governing procedural direction required matters not decided within that period to be deemed not heard and listed afresh with prior approval. The court relied on the admitted delay, found a clear breach of the prescribed time limit, and set aside and quashed the delayed order. The merits of the dispute were not examined, and the matter was directed to be placed before a bench for fresh hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>