<?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 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95672</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had spent the intervening period pursuing a revision application under a bona fide belief that it was the correct remedy. The Tribunal treated the delay as arising from prosecution of the wrong forum, noted that it was not inordinate, and held that the ends of justice favoured condonation. The condonation application was therefore 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=132731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 507 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95672</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant had spent the intervening period pursuing a revision application under a bona fide belief that it was the correct remedy. The Tribunal treated the delay as arising from prosecution of the wrong forum, noted that it was not inordinate, and held that the ends of justice favoured condonation. The condonation application was therefore 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=95672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>