<?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 (8) TMI 189 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32645</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Applicant&#039;s application for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limitations of rectification under this section. The Tribunal found the new issues raised by the Applicant lacked merit and highlighted that rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to orders passed under Section 35C(1). The rejection was based on the absence of substantive arguments and the failure to raise the penalty imposition issue in the earlier application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 189 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32645</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Applicant&#039;s application for rectification of mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limitations of rectification under this section. The Tribunal found the new issues raised by the Applicant lacked merit and highlighted that rectification under Section 35C(2) is limited to orders passed under Section 35C(1). The rejection was based on the absence of substantive arguments and the failure to raise the penalty imposition issue in the earlier application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>