<?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 (5) TMI 712 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98226</link>
    <description>A delay of about three months and seven days in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant explained that the advocate who had originally handled the matter became ill and later died, after which the brief was obtained and the appeal filed. The Tribunal accepted that the delay was not intentional and that sufficient cause existed for the belated filing. On that basis, the miscellaneous application was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:02:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135283" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 712 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98226</link>
      <description>A delay of about three months and seven days in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant explained that the advocate who had originally handled the matter became ill and later died, after which the brief was obtained and the appeal filed. The Tribunal accepted that the delay was not intentional and that sufficient cause existed for the belated filing. On that basis, the miscellaneous application was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>