<?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 242 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35268</link>
    <description>The High Court admitted the appeal challenging the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s rejection of an appeal on maintainability grounds. The Court found that the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealable under Section 35-B(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that the Tribunal could not refuse to admit the appeal under the second proviso of Section 35-B(1) as the case involved interpreting a notification. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, and remanded the case for further consideration, directing that the Commissioner (Appeals) order should not be enforced during this process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 242 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35268</link>
      <description>The High Court admitted the appeal challenging the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s rejection of an appeal on maintainability grounds. The Court found that the order by the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealable under Section 35-B(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It held that the Tribunal could not refuse to admit the appeal under the second proviso of Section 35-B(1) as the case involved interpreting a notification. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, and remanded the case for further consideration, directing that the Commissioner (Appeals) order should not be enforced during this process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>