<?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>1999 (12) TMI 305 - CEGAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93360</link>
    <description>Where the governing procedural rules require an appeal memorandum and connected application to be personally signed and verified by the appellant, a filing signed only by the advocate does not satisfy the mandatory requirement. The appeal memorandum and condonation application were therefore treated as procedurally defective, and notice was directed to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of proper signature and verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:50:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 305 - CEGAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93360</link>
      <description>Where the governing procedural rules require an appeal memorandum and connected application to be personally signed and verified by the appellant, a filing signed only by the advocate does not satisfy the mandatory requirement. The appeal memorandum and condonation application were therefore treated as procedurally defective, and notice was directed to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of proper signature and verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93360</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>