<?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 (3) TMI 514 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94871</link>
    <description>Restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution requires a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance, and the party must keep the Tribunal informed of any change of address for service. Where notice was sent to the recorded address and the record showed that the same address later received the dismissal order, the explanation that counsel had not received notice was not accepted. The application to recall the dismissal was therefore rejected and the appeal was not restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:16:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 514 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94871</link>
      <description>Restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution requires a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance, and the party must keep the Tribunal informed of any change of address for service. Where notice was sent to the recorded address and the record showed that the same address later received the dismissal order, the explanation that counsel had not received notice was not accepted. The application to recall the dismissal was therefore rejected and the appeal was not restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>