<?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 506 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95671</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellants had spent the relevant period pursuing a revision application before the Government under a bona fide belief that it was the correct remedy. The record showed that the delay was explained by that mistaken but genuine course of action, and it was not treated as so excessive as to defeat the appeal. A liberal approach was applied in the interests of justice, and the condonation application was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:00:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 506 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95671</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellants had spent the relevant period pursuing a revision application before the Government under a bona fide belief that it was the correct remedy. The record showed that the delay was explained by that mistaken but genuine course of action, and it was not treated as so excessive as to defeat the appeal. A liberal approach was applied in the interests of justice, and the condonation application was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95671</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>