<?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 (9) TMI 699 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100662</link>
    <description>An application to restore an appeal dismissed for default was rejected because the plea of a Telegram request for adjournment was unsupported by any reliable certificate or proof from the Telegraph authorities, and the alleged illness of the Chartered Accountant was also left unproved. In the absence of substantiated grounds for non-appearance, no basis was made out to reopen the appeal, and the dismissal for default remained in force.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:34:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137713" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 699 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100662</link>
      <description>An application to restore an appeal dismissed for default was rejected because the plea of a Telegram request for adjournment was unsupported by any reliable certificate or proof from the Telegraph authorities, and the alleged illness of the Chartered Accountant was also left unproved. In the absence of substantiated grounds for non-appearance, no basis was made out to reopen the appeal, and the dismissal for default remained in force.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>