<?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 (2) TMI 443 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374816</link>
    <description>A rectification application based on reimbursable expenses, limitation and penalty was rejected because no error apparent on the face of the final order was shown. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had specifically recorded the relevant exchange and that the appellant had been given full opportunity to present submissions. On that basis, it held that the request did not disclose a permissible ground for rectification and was not maintainable on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:07:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557209" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 443 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374816</link>
      <description>A rectification application based on reimbursable expenses, limitation and penalty was rejected because no error apparent on the face of the final order was shown. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had specifically recorded the relevant exchange and that the appellant had been given full opportunity to present submissions. On that basis, it held that the request did not disclose a permissible ground for rectification and was not maintainable on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374816</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>