<?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 (9) TMI 310 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366574</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court considered a challenge to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s rejection of a settlement application filed post the adjudication order. The petitioner argued that as the application was submitted before receiving the order, it should not be dismissed. The Revenue contended that adjudication concluded upon order issuance, not service. The court noted the disparity in language between the Central Excise Act and Income Tax Act, deferring a final decision to assess the latter&#039;s relevance. No interim relief was granted, and the respondent waived service, with the court expediting the hearing and permitting further actions if needed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:48:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533442" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 310 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366574</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court considered a challenge to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission&#039;s rejection of a settlement application filed post the adjudication order. The petitioner argued that as the application was submitted before receiving the order, it should not be dismissed. The Revenue contended that adjudication concluded upon order issuance, not service. The court noted the disparity in language between the Central Excise Act and Income Tax Act, deferring a final decision to assess the latter&#039;s relevance. No interim relief was granted, and the respondent waived service, with the court expediting the hearing and permitting further actions if needed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>