<?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 478 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94876</link>
    <description>The appeal under the Central Excise Act was found to be filed beyond the prescribed limitation period by three days, based on the receipt date and the date stamp on the impugned order. Condonation could not be granted because section 35B(2) permits delay to be excused only when an application for condonation is made, and no such application was filed. The Tribunal therefore treated the appeal as time barred and dismissed it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131935" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 478 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94876</link>
      <description>The appeal under the Central Excise Act was found to be filed beyond the prescribed limitation period by three days, based on the receipt date and the date stamp on the impugned order. Condonation could not be granted because section 35B(2) permits delay to be excused only when an application for condonation is made, and no such application was filed. The Tribunal therefore treated the appeal as time barred and dismissed it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>