<?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 (11) TMI 553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350674</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appeal by Revenue was not maintainable due to the absence of an appellate remedy for Revenue in CHALR, 2004 and the significant delay in the proceedings, rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:50:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350674</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appeal by Revenue was not maintainable due to the absence of an appellate remedy for Revenue in CHALR, 2004 and the significant delay in the proceedings, rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350674</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>