<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790203</link>
    <description>A defect in proof of authorisation for filing an appeal is curable where the board resolution exists or is later produced. Rejection of the appeal without first giving the appellant an opportunity to rectify that defect was not justified, and the matter had to be decided on merits. The impugned order was set aside, the defect was treated as removed, and the case was remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law and natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 08:47:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=897858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790203</link>
      <description>A defect in proof of authorisation for filing an appeal is curable where the board resolution exists or is later produced. Rejection of the appeal without first giving the appellant an opportunity to rectify that defect was not justified, and the matter had to be decided on merits. The impugned order was set aside, the defect was treated as removed, and the case was remanded to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law and natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>