<?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>2012 (5) TMI 700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184362</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 35(1)(A) of the Central Excise Act barred Tribunal appeals against Commissioner (Appeals) orders where export goods were lost in transit from the factory to the warehouse. On that statutory bar, the CESTAT held that the appeals fell within the exclusion and could not be entertained. The matter was disposed of at the threshold on maintainability, leaving the substantive dispute on transit loss and penalty undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2016 15:17:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 700 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184362</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 35(1)(A) of the Central Excise Act barred Tribunal appeals against Commissioner (Appeals) orders where export goods were lost in transit from the factory to the warehouse. On that statutory bar, the CESTAT held that the appeals fell within the exclusion and could not be entertained. The matter was disposed of at the threshold on maintainability, leaving the substantive dispute on transit loss and penalty undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184362</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>