<?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 (8) TMI 499 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331115</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that directing the appeal to be filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act for a service tax issue was not compliant with statutory requirements. The appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed not maintainable as the relevant provisions were introduced after the appeal was filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 499 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331115</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that directing the appeal to be filed under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act for a service tax issue was not compliant with statutory requirements. The appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner before the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed not maintainable as the relevant provisions were introduced after the appeal was filed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>