<?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 (10) TMI 820 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368854</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Rectification of Mistake application concerning a typographical error in the order, correcting it to remand both appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai II. Despite the delay in filing the application, the Tribunal considered the rectification permissible under Section 35C(2) and did not grant the recall of the order sought by the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:43:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 820 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368854</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Rectification of Mistake application concerning a typographical error in the order, correcting it to remand both appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), Mumbai II. Despite the delay in filing the application, the Tribunal considered the rectification permissible under Section 35C(2) and did not grant the recall of the order sought by the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>