<?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 (7) TMI 561 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97964</link>
    <description>A delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period was not treated as bona fide where the appellant relied on a later Board circular and a parallel refund claim. Those circumstances did not prevent the appeal from being filed within time, and the limitation requirement remained operative. On the facts stated, the delay was therefore not condonable and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:53:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 561 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97964</link>
      <description>A delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period was not treated as bona fide where the appellant relied on a later Board circular and a parallel refund claim. Those circumstances did not prevent the appeal from being filed within time, and the limitation requirement remained operative. On the facts stated, the delay was therefore not condonable and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>