<?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>2019 (4) TMI 2151 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312898</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s application for rectification of a mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to its untimely filing beyond the six-month statutory limit. Despite invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act to justify the delay, the Tribunal emphasized its lack of authority to condone delays exceeding the prescribed period, referencing a precedent decision. Consequently, both the rectification application and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed, as the Tribunal adhered strictly to the statutory timeframe. The judgment was pronounced in open court, affirming the applications&#039; rejection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2024 17:53:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2151 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312898</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Department&#039;s application for rectification of a mistake under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to its untimely filing beyond the six-month statutory limit. Despite invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act to justify the delay, the Tribunal emphasized its lack of authority to condone delays exceeding the prescribed period, referencing a precedent decision. Consequently, both the rectification application and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed, as the Tribunal adhered strictly to the statutory timeframe. The judgment was pronounced in open court, affirming the applications&#039; rejection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312898</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>