<?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>2017 (2) TMI 200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338500</link>
    <description>Limitation for a rectification application under the Central Excise Act was held to run from the date the order is received or communicated, not from the date of the order itself. The Court reasoned that a party cannot be expected to seek correction before becoming aware of the order, and that a contrary reading would defeat the legislative intent and the language of the provision. The Tribunal&#039;s reliance on an earlier decision was found inapplicable, while the prior Division Bench view treating receipt or communication as the starting point was followed. The rejection of the application as time-barred was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2017 17:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457610" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 200 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338500</link>
      <description>Limitation for a rectification application under the Central Excise Act was held to run from the date the order is received or communicated, not from the date of the order itself. The Court reasoned that a party cannot be expected to seek correction before becoming aware of the order, and that a contrary reading would defeat the legislative intent and the language of the provision. The Tribunal&#039;s reliance on an earlier decision was found inapplicable, while the prior Division Bench view treating receipt or communication as the starting point was followed. The rejection of the application as time-barred was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>