<?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>2008 (11) TMI 92 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32449</link>
    <description>The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the appellants&#039; confusion regarding the correct legal remedy. Despite the preamble in the impugned order suggesting the wrong provision of law for the appeal, the Tribunal found the appellants acted diligently and in good faith. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal by way of remand, and disposed of the stay application to ensure the appeal would be considered on its merits in compliance with legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 92 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32449</link>
      <description>The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, acknowledging the appellants&#039; confusion regarding the correct legal remedy. Despite the preamble in the impugned order suggesting the wrong provision of law for the appeal, the Tribunal found the appellants acted diligently and in good faith. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal by way of remand, and disposed of the stay application to ensure the appeal would be considered on its merits in compliance with legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>