<?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>2023 (6) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438982</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal determined that the date of communication of the adjudicating order was 13.9.2019 when the appellant received the order, not the date of the original order. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on the merits within three months from the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:28:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 556 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438982</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal determined that the date of communication of the adjudicating order was 13.9.2019 when the appellant received the order, not the date of the original order. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on the merits within three months from the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>