<?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 (3) TMI 1131 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188534</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed exemption from filing the original compounding order and accepted a photocopy for the appeal because the appellant did not receive the original, the co-appellants had placed the original on record, and the Revenue raised no objection. On that basis, the appellant was permitted to proceed with the appeal using the photocopy in lieu of the original document.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2016 09:47:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1131 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188534</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed exemption from filing the original compounding order and accepted a photocopy for the appeal because the appellant did not receive the original, the co-appellants had placed the original on record, and the Revenue raised no objection. On that basis, the appellant was permitted to proceed with the appeal using the photocopy in lieu of the original document.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>