<?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 1371 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336726</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the condonation of delay application for filing the appeal, finding that the appeal was filed within seven days from the date of the corrigendum rectifying the original order&#039;s shortcomings. However, the Tribunal dismissed the early hearing application, noting that despite being the second round of litigation, the appeal pertained to 2016 and did not warrant prioritization given the heavy caseload of older cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:23:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=453167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1371 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336726</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the condonation of delay application for filing the appeal, finding that the appeal was filed within seven days from the date of the corrigendum rectifying the original order&#039;s shortcomings. However, the Tribunal dismissed the early hearing application, noting that despite being the second round of litigation, the appeal pertained to 2016 and did not warrant prioritization given the heavy caseload of older cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>