<?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 (7) TMI 420 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93919</link>
    <description>An appeal memorandum that was not verified at the end, as required by the applicable rule, was treated as a material procedural lapse. The defect was not cured despite an earlier warning in the stay proceedings, and that failure was considered sufficient cause for dismissal. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 11.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:45:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 420 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93919</link>
      <description>An appeal memorandum that was not verified at the end, as required by the applicable rule, was treated as a material procedural lapse. The defect was not cured despite an earlier warning in the stay proceedings, and that failure was considered sufficient cause for dismissal. The appeal was therefore dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 11.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>