<?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 487 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96324</link>
    <description>An appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit or stay condition attributable to a different entity when the appellant&#039;s own compliance is not the legal basis for dismissal. The Tribunal accepted that the connected appellant&#039;s default could not automatically prejudice the present appellant and held that the appeal required independent consideration. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:31:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 487 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96324</link>
      <description>An appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit or stay condition attributable to a different entity when the appellant&#039;s own compliance is not the legal basis for dismissal. The Tribunal accepted that the connected appellant&#039;s default could not automatically prejudice the present appellant and held that the appeal required independent consideration. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>