<?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 1433 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372664</link>
    <description>The Court found that the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was not justified in remanding the matter for adjudication regarding jurisdiction while an appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed CESTAT to decide the appeals on merits, including the jurisdiction issue, without being influenced by the previous decision of the Court. The appeals were partly allowed in this regard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:00:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=549583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1433 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372664</link>
      <description>The Court found that the Customs, Excise &amp;amp; Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was not justified in remanding the matter for adjudication regarding jurisdiction while an appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed CESTAT to decide the appeals on merits, including the jurisdiction issue, without being influenced by the previous decision of the Court. The appeals were partly allowed in this regard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>