<?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>1998 (4) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90482</link>
    <description>The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 17 supplementary appeals, emphasizing that it was a procedural requirement. The review by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was for the entire adjudication order, making all parties involved relevant. The Tribunal held that filing supplementary appeals is procedural, and thus, formally condoned the delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:22:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 329 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90482</link>
      <description>The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing 17 supplementary appeals, emphasizing that it was a procedural requirement. The review by the Central Board of Excise and Customs was for the entire adjudication order, making all parties involved relevant. The Tribunal held that filing supplementary appeals is procedural, and thus, formally condoned the delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>