<?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>2009 (5) TMI 81 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35135</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that where the plea on non-applicability of the extended period was not considered in the final order, the omission justified recall in rectification. It found that the issue had remained undecided and, in the interest of natural justice, the earlier order could not stand without addressing that contention. The rectification application was therefore allowed, the final order was recalled, and the appeal was directed to be reheard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73739" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 81 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35135</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that where the plea on non-applicability of the extended period was not considered in the final order, the omission justified recall in rectification. It found that the issue had remained undecided and, in the interest of natural justice, the earlier order could not stand without addressing that contention. The rectification application was therefore allowed, the final order was recalled, and the appeal was directed to be reheard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>