<?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 (8) TMI 393 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93951</link>
    <description>An appeal dismissed for want of prosecution may be restored where the applicant gives a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance and supports it with material showing diligence. The Tribunal accepted that an adjournment request had been sent before the hearing date and that postal proof corroborated it, which justified recalling the earlier dismissal order. The appeal was accordingly restored to its original number and revived for hearing on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:39:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 393 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93951</link>
      <description>An appeal dismissed for want of prosecution may be restored where the applicant gives a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance and supports it with material showing diligence. The Tribunal accepted that an adjournment request had been sent before the hearing date and that postal proof corroborated it, which justified recalling the earlier dismissal order. The appeal was accordingly restored to its original number and revived for hearing on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93951</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>