<?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 (9) TMI 494 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412149</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for further adjudication on merits, as the rejection based on the limitation period was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actual receipt for calculating the appeal period and found the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on limitation. The reliance on a specific court decision was deemed legally untenable, necessitating a review of the case on its merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:55:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655452" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 494 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412149</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter for further adjudication on merits, as the rejection based on the limitation period was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of actual receipt for calculating the appeal period and found the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal based on limitation. The reliance on a specific court decision was deemed legally untenable, necessitating a review of the case on its merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412149</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>