<?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 (6) TMI 585 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99006</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal was not condoned because a review or reconsideration said to have arisen from a newspaper report of a Supreme Court decision was not accepted as sufficient cause. The tribunal noted that similar grounds had already been rejected, and held that once the explanation for delay is inherently unacceptable, the length of the delay becomes immaterial. As the delay was not excused, the connected stay application and appeal could not be maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:59:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 585 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99006</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal was not condoned because a review or reconsideration said to have arisen from a newspaper report of a Supreme Court decision was not accepted as sufficient cause. The tribunal noted that similar grounds had already been rejected, and held that once the explanation for delay is inherently unacceptable, the length of the delay becomes immaterial. As the delay was not excused, the connected stay application and appeal could not be maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>