<?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 (5) TMI 1022 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380294</link>
    <description>Valid service of an excise order under section 37C(1)(a) required production of the appellant&#039;s acknowledgement of receipt; reliance only on a speed-post barcode reference was insufficient to establish service before the relevant date. As no acknowledgement was produced, the appeal was directed to be processed, assigned an appeal number, and listed before the Division Bench at the earliest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 11:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=571601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1022 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380294</link>
      <description>Valid service of an excise order under section 37C(1)(a) required production of the appellant&#039;s acknowledgement of receipt; reliance only on a speed-post barcode reference was insufficient to establish service before the relevant date. As no acknowledgement was produced, the appeal was directed to be processed, assigned an appeal number, and listed before the Division Bench at the earliest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>