<?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>1989 (5) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42556</link>
    <description>An appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order. Where the date of communication is a material fact in dispute, the appellate authority must record a finding on that issue before rejecting the appeal as time-barred. Here, the appellant claimed service of the order in November 1987, which would have made the appeal timely, but the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the matter only by reference to the date of the order and without determining when communication occurred. The dismissal was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed, with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (5) TMI 68 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42556</link>
      <description>An appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act must be filed within three months from the date of communication of the decision or order. Where the date of communication is a material fact in dispute, the appellate authority must record a finding on that issue before rejecting the appeal as time-barred. Here, the appellant claimed service of the order in November 1987, which would have made the appeal timely, but the Collector (Appeals) dismissed the matter only by reference to the date of the order and without determining when communication occurred. The dismissal was therefore held unsustainable and was quashed, with a direction to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>