<?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 (9) TMI 226 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33238</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was condoned because it arose during obtaining legal opinion and internal approval after receipt of the adjudication order, and the record did not show inaction or negligence by the appellant&#039;s legal department. The time-bar rejection was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 226 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33238</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was condoned because it arose during obtaining legal opinion and internal approval after receipt of the adjudication order, and the record did not show inaction or negligence by the appellant&#039;s legal department. The time-bar rejection was therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33238</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>