<?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>2019 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372890</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; power to remand matters post-amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on various court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) retained the authority to remand cases back for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 06:25:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550653" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372890</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; power to remand matters post-amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relying on various court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) retained the authority to remand cases back for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>