<?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>1994 (5) TMI 68 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83247</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, condoning the delay in filing based on a mistaken belief that the appeal should be filed before the Collector (Appeals) and the advocate&#039;s busy schedule. The decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing bona fide mistakes by counsel in condoning delays, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to sufficient cause preventing timely filing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:06:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 68 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83247</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, condoning the delay in filing based on a mistaken belief that the appeal should be filed before the Collector (Appeals) and the advocate&#039;s busy schedule. The decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing bona fide mistakes by counsel in condoning delays, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant due to sufficient cause preventing timely filing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>