<?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 (6) TMI 1036 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182896</link>
    <description>Dispatch of an adjudication order by registered post to the correct address gives rise to deemed service under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that presumption can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal evidence. Because no such evidence was produced, limitation for filing the appeal ran from the deemed date of service, and the challenge was treated as time-barred beyond the statutory period and the condonable delay period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 May 2016 10:03:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1036 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182896</link>
      <description>Dispatch of an adjudication order by registered post to the correct address gives rise to deemed service under Section 37C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; that presumption can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal evidence. Because no such evidence was produced, limitation for filing the appeal ran from the deemed date of service, and the challenge was treated as time-barred beyond the statutory period and the condonable delay period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>