<?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 613 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99033</link>
    <description>Delay of 60 days in filing a Revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation showed inaction and lack of promptness in processing the file for authorisation. Internal movement of papers and administrative workload were treated as insufficient cause, consistent with the principle that departmental delay and inter-departmental correspondence do not, by themselves, justify condonation. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal consequently stood rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:44:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (6) TMI 613 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99033</link>
      <description>Delay of 60 days in filing a Revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation showed inaction and lack of promptness in processing the file for authorisation. Internal movement of papers and administrative workload were treated as insufficient cause, consistent with the principle that departmental delay and inter-departmental correspondence do not, by themselves, justify condonation. The application for condonation was rejected, and the appeal consequently stood rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99033</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>