<?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>1997 (7) TMI 428 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91088</link>
    <description>An adjournment application supported by a registered post receipt was accepted as having been sent, although it had not been noticed when the earlier order was made. That omission was treated as sufficient cause to recall the earlier order and restore the appeal for a fresh hearing. The matter was therefore revived and fixed for hearing again.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:54:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128150" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 428 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91088</link>
      <description>An adjournment application supported by a registered post receipt was accepted as having been sent, although it had not been noticed when the earlier order was made. That omission was treated as sufficient cause to recall the earlier order and restore the appeal for a fresh hearing. The matter was therefore revived and fixed for hearing again.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91088</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>