<?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 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336382</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039; decision, dismissing the appeal due to a significant delay in filing against the Order-in-Appeal. The attested copy was deemed valid despite the absence of the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s signature, and the issue of duty levy was considered irrelevant as the appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039; order was lawful, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336382</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039; decision, dismissing the appeal due to a significant delay in filing against the Order-in-Appeal. The attested copy was deemed valid despite the absence of the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s signature, and the issue of duty levy was considered irrelevant as the appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner(Appeals)&#039; order was lawful, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>