<?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>2016 (6) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328485</link>
    <description>Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules required the appeals to abate on the death of the appellants, where death certificates showed both deceased directors had filed the penalty challenges in their personal capacity. As the appellants had died, the Tribunal held that the proceedings could not continue and ordered the appeals abated without examining the merits of the penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Jun 2016 21:15:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=430648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328485</link>
      <description>Rule 22 of the CEGAT Procedure Rules required the appeals to abate on the death of the appellants, where death certificates showed both deceased directors had filed the penalty challenges in their personal capacity. As the appellants had died, the Tribunal held that the proceedings could not continue and ordered the appeals abated without examining the merits of the penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328485</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>