<?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 542 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331158</link>
    <description>The High Court restored an appeal that was initially dismissed due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd case, emphasizing that COD clearance is not mandatory for pursuing litigation before the Tribunal. The Court considered the pendency of the COD application at the time of the Supreme Court&#039;s decision and rejected the argument that delay in filing the restoration application should be a ground for rejection. The judgment highlighted the diminishing relevance of COD clearance and focused on the overall context of the case rather than delays in restoration applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:33:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438307" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 542 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331158</link>
      <description>The High Court restored an appeal that was initially dismissed due to lack of clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Electronics Corporation of India Ltd case, emphasizing that COD clearance is not mandatory for pursuing litigation before the Tribunal. The Court considered the pendency of the COD application at the time of the Supreme Court&#039;s decision and rejected the argument that delay in filing the restoration application should be a ground for rejection. The judgment highlighted the diminishing relevance of COD clearance and focused on the overall context of the case rather than delays in restoration applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>