<?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>1991 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84797</link>
    <description>The request for adjournment was rejected, and the stay application was dismissed for default in appearance. Notice was directed to be issued to the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2011 17:12:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84797</link>
      <description>The request for adjournment was rejected, and the stay application was dismissed for default in appearance. Notice was directed to be issued to the appellants under Section 35F of the Central Excises &amp; Salt Act, 1944, to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>