<?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 (10) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349343</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appeal was not time-barred as the order was not properly served to the company. The High Court&#039;s order did not impact the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed appropriate for factual verification by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh order based on the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s findings, resulting in the disposal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492277" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349343</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appeal was not time-barred as the order was not properly served to the company. The High Court&#039;s order did not impact the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed appropriate for factual verification by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh order based on the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s findings, resulting in the disposal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349343</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>