<?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>1986 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72177</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the need for parties to diligently adhere to procedural timelines, ultimately dismissing the appeal as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 18:52:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72177</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. Emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the need for parties to diligently adhere to procedural timelines, ultimately dismissing the appeal as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>