<?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 (4) TMI 700 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98928</link>
    <description>The proviso to Section 35G was applied as a strict statutory limit on condonation of delay. Because the reference application was filed 32 days late and the provision permitted condonation only up to 30 days, the delay fell outside the tribunal&#039;s power to excuse. The condonation request was therefore rejected, and the reference application was rejected as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:17:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135985" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 700 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98928</link>
      <description>The proviso to Section 35G was applied as a strict statutory limit on condonation of delay. Because the reference application was filed 32 days late and the provision permitted condonation only up to 30 days, the delay fell outside the tribunal&#039;s power to excuse. The condonation request was therefore rejected, and the reference application was rejected as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>