<?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>2000 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93555</link>
    <description>The Revenue&#039;s application to condone delay in filing the appeal was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The delay of nearly two months in filing the appeal after receiving the Commissioner&#039;s order was not considered to have sufficient cause for condonation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:14:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 265 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93555</link>
      <description>The Revenue&#039;s application to condone delay in filing the appeal was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred. The delay of nearly two months in filing the appeal after receiving the Commissioner&#039;s order was not considered to have sufficient cause for condonation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>