<?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 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373207</link>
    <description>The Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to decide an appeal on merits and cannot short-circuit adjudication by dismissing it for non-prosecution. Where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and then refused restoration, that approach was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=551894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373207</link>
      <description>The Tribunal under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is required to decide an appeal on merits and cannot short-circuit adjudication by dismissing it for non-prosecution. Where the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default and then refused restoration, that approach was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>