<?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>2001 (3) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96105</link>
    <description>Delay in complying with a pre-deposit direction under a stay order was condoned where the deposit requirement did not operate as an automatic dismissal of the appeal on default. The Tribunal considered the appellants&#039; financial difficulty and, on that basis, extended the time for deposit and accepted the amount already deposited. The operative effect was that the belated pre-deposit was treated as valid and the delay stood condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 12:48:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133164" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 438 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96105</link>
      <description>Delay in complying with a pre-deposit direction under a stay order was condoned where the deposit requirement did not operate as an automatic dismissal of the appeal on default. The Tribunal considered the appellants&#039; financial difficulty and, on that basis, extended the time for deposit and accepted the amount already deposited. The operative effect was that the belated pre-deposit was treated as valid and the delay stood condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96105</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>