<?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>2021 (8) TMI 1111 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411533</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed 59 days beyond the statutory time limit. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements. The judgment cited supported the decision to reject the appeal based on limitation, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2021 11:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1111 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411533</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed 59 days beyond the statutory time limit. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court and High Courts, the dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory requirements. The judgment cited supported the decision to reject the appeal based on limitation, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>