<?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>1995 (5) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84295</link>
    <description>A short delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation showed one partner was ill and under treatment while the other was away on tour, and the appeal papers were then prepared and posted promptly. The objection based on the medical certificate was held insufficient to show patent negligence or laches on the appellant&#039;s part, so the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:39:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (5) TMI 136 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84295</link>
      <description>A short delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation showed one partner was ill and under treatment while the other was away on tour, and the appeal papers were then prepared and posted promptly. The objection based on the medical certificate was held insufficient to show patent negligence or laches on the appellant&#039;s part, so the appeal was directed to be heard on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 May 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>