<?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>2024 (12) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762568</link>
    <description>A short delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant was not put on notice that condonation was required and was thereby denied a meaningful to seek it, so dismissal on limitation could not stand. A subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 was not additional consideration for excise valuation because it did not affect the selling price of the goods, so the resulting central excise demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2024 08:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762568</link>
      <description>A short delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where the appellant was not put on notice that condonation was required and was thereby denied a meaningful to seek it, so dismissal on limitation could not stand. A subsidy received under the Rajasthan Investment Promotion Scheme, 2010 was not additional consideration for excise valuation because it did not affect the selling price of the goods, so the resulting central excise demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>