<?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>1984 (11) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74825</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the Department&#039;s appeal seeking condonation of delay in filing, citing lack of due diligence and insufficient cause for the nine-month delay. The Department&#039;s reasons, including the need for study and consultation, were deemed inadequate. Emphasizing the discretionary nature of condonation, the Tribunal held that the Department&#039;s negligence and lack of prompt action led to the time-barred appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:47:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113104" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 205 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74825</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the Department&#039;s appeal seeking condonation of delay in filing, citing lack of due diligence and insufficient cause for the nine-month delay. The Department&#039;s reasons, including the need for study and consultation, were deemed inadequate. Emphasizing the discretionary nature of condonation, the Tribunal held that the Department&#039;s negligence and lack of prompt action led to the time-barred appeal&#039;s dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>