<?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>1990 (1) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80417</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd. against the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, due to a delay of 58 days in filing beyond the prescribed period. The appellant&#039;s request for condonation of delay based on misplacement of papers and non-action by the Chief General Manager was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely filing of appeals, holding that misplacement of papers was not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the stay application and appeal were dismissed, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to avoid adverse outcomes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:42:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80417</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s. Kanoria Wisconsin Centrifugal Ltd. against the Collector of Central Excise, Bolpur, due to a delay of 58 days in filing beyond the prescribed period. The appellant&#039;s request for condonation of delay based on misplacement of papers and non-action by the Chief General Manager was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely filing of appeals, holding that misplacement of papers was not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Consequently, the stay application and appeal were dismissed, underscoring the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to avoid adverse outcomes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>