<?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 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78991</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s Miscellaneous Application, ruling that the letter dated 17th November, 2003, submitted as additional evidence, did not significantly impact the case. Despite the appellant&#039;s emphasis on the letter&#039;s importance, the Tribunal found it not crucial to the proceedings. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing, granting the appellant time to submit specified documents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 13:07:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78991</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s Miscellaneous Application, ruling that the letter dated 17th November, 2003, submitted as additional evidence, did not significantly impact the case. Despite the appellant&#039;s emphasis on the letter&#039;s importance, the Tribunal found it not crucial to the proceedings. The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing, granting the appellant time to submit specified documents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>