<?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 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93927</link>
    <description>The reference application was restored to its original number because the appellant&#039;s absence on the hearing date was treated as sufficiently explained. An adjournment request had been sent before the hearing, leaving adequate time before the scheduled date, and that prior request supported restoration rather than dismissal on the basis of non-appearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:10:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130987" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 428 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93927</link>
      <description>The reference application was restored to its original number because the appellant&#039;s absence on the hearing date was treated as sufficiently explained. An adjournment request had been sent before the hearing, leaving adequate time before the scheduled date, and that prior request supported restoration rather than dismissal on the basis of non-appearance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>