<?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 (3) TMI 785 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100021</link>
    <description>Delay in filing a fresh appeal was condoned where the applicants substantiated, with documentary material, that an earlier appeal and supporting bank drafts had been filed within limitation but were later not traceable in the Registry. The delay was treated as attributable to that administrative lapse rather than any lack of diligence by the applicants, and the appeal was directed to proceed to regular hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 785 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100021</link>
      <description>Delay in filing a fresh appeal was condoned where the applicants substantiated, with documentary material, that an earlier appeal and supporting bank drafts had been filed within limitation but were later not traceable in the Registry. The delay was treated as attributable to that administrative lapse rather than any lack of diligence by the applicants, and the appeal was directed to proceed to regular hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>