<?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 (12) TMI 1419 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372650</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed applications by M/s KSB Pumps Ltd seeking rectification of mistakes in the order dated 25th October 2017, emphasizing that such requests for a fresh hearing do not align with the scope of proceedings under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment clarified that the non-consideration of submissions on the invocation of section 11A of the Act did not warrant rectification. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of filing cross-objections in appeal proceedings, noting that failure to do so denies the respondent the opportunity to raise relevant issues. The applications were rejected, and the judgment was delivered on 14/12/2018.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:58:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549566" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1419 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372650</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed applications by M/s KSB Pumps Ltd seeking rectification of mistakes in the order dated 25th October 2017, emphasizing that such requests for a fresh hearing do not align with the scope of proceedings under section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The judgment clarified that the non-consideration of submissions on the invocation of section 11A of the Act did not warrant rectification. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of filing cross-objections in appeal proceedings, noting that failure to do so denies the respondent the opportunity to raise relevant issues. The applications were rejected, and the judgment was delivered on 14/12/2018.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>