<?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 (11) TMI 202 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83660</link>
    <description>Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits dismissal of an appeal for default of appearance where counsel does not appear and the adjournment request is not supported by sufficient cause. A plea based on personal holiday plans and travel was held inadequate, particularly where the matter had already been restored once and the hearing date had taken counsel&#039;s convenience into account. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 202 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83660</link>
      <description>Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 permits dismissal of an appeal for default of appearance where counsel does not appear and the adjournment request is not supported by sufficient cause. A plea based on personal holiday plans and travel was held inadequate, particularly where the matter had already been restored once and the hearing date had taken counsel&#039;s convenience into account. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for default of appearance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>