<?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>1985 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73100</link>
    <description>Appeal was dismissed in default because the appellant was absent at the hearing, and no representation was made on the scheduled date. The tribunal applied Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal where the appellant fails to appear. The order is procedural and does not decide the substantive excise dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73100</link>
      <description>Appeal was dismissed in default because the appellant was absent at the hearing, and no representation was made on the scheduled date. The tribunal applied Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which permits dismissal where the appellant fails to appear. The order is procedural and does not decide the substantive excise dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>