<?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>2010 (4) TMI 430 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77903</link>
    <description>The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006, delayed by approximately 480 days. Despite citing previous Supreme Court decisions where longer delays were condoned, the Court criticized the petitioner&#039;s unnecessary actions and delays in obtaining a certified copy of the order. The Court noted the department&#039;s apparent delay tactics but ultimately dismissed the application and appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely and effective steps in the appeal process. No costs were awarded, and parties were directed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 430 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77903</link>
      <description>The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an order dated 7th July, 2006, delayed by approximately 480 days. Despite citing previous Supreme Court decisions where longer delays were condoned, the Court criticized the petitioner&#039;s unnecessary actions and delays in obtaining a certified copy of the order. The Court noted the department&#039;s apparent delay tactics but ultimately dismissed the application and appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely and effective steps in the appeal process. No costs were awarded, and parties were directed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>