<?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 (4) TMI 1553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379109</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI found that the rectification application filed by the respondent assessee was beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation for rectification starts from the date of service of the order. Additionally, discrepancies in the final order led to the misinterpretation of parties, resulting in an erroneous conclusion. The Tribunal recalled the final order, restored the appeal for proper hearing, and scheduled the matter for final hearing on 06.05.2019.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1553 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379109</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI found that the rectification application filed by the respondent assessee was beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal clarified that the limitation for rectification starts from the date of service of the order. Additionally, discrepancies in the final order led to the misinterpretation of parties, resulting in an erroneous conclusion. The Tribunal recalled the final order, restored the appeal for proper hearing, and scheduled the matter for final hearing on 06.05.2019.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>