<?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>2018 (3) TMI 863 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357160</link>
    <description>Delay in filing appeals condonation: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding it was filed within the limitation period, setting aside the previous order, and remanding the case for further consideration. The appellant&#039;s contention that the appeal was within the two-month limit, accounting for a public holiday, was upheld.Rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining it was filed within the prescribed two-month period, overturning the earlier order, and sending the case back for a decision on its merits. The appellant&#039;s claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was partially rejected but later accepted on appeal.Interpretation of limitation period for filing appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act: The Tribunal found the appeal was filed within the limitation period, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, and remanding the case for a decision on merits while ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 07:25:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 863 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357160</link>
      <description>Delay in filing appeals condonation: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding it was filed within the limitation period, setting aside the previous order, and remanding the case for further consideration. The appellant&#039;s contention that the appeal was within the two-month limit, accounting for a public holiday, was upheld.Rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, determining it was filed within the prescribed two-month period, overturning the earlier order, and sending the case back for a decision on its merits. The appellant&#039;s claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was partially rejected but later accepted on appeal.Interpretation of limitation period for filing appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act: The Tribunal found the appeal was filed within the limitation period, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision, and remanding the case for a decision on merits while ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>