<?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>2020 (3) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393425</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s application for recalling the final order, which alleged errors in the order&#039;s content. The appellant argued that certain grounds were erroneously omitted in the final order, despite being raised in their appeal memo and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both parties, emphasized that the rectification process is meant for correcting evident mistakes, not for reevaluating previous findings. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s arguments did not justify recalling the order, ultimately denying the application based on established legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 07:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=606911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393425</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s application for recalling the final order, which alleged errors in the order&#039;s content. The appellant argued that certain grounds were erroneously omitted in the final order, despite being raised in their appeal memo and supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both parties, emphasized that the rectification process is meant for correcting evident mistakes, not for reevaluating previous findings. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s arguments did not justify recalling the order, ultimately denying the application based on established legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>