<?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 (10) TMI 533 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100788</link>
    <description>Internal movement of a file between offices and internal proposals to appeal did not, by itself, amount to sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 64 days in filing the revenue appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was authorised only after the limitation period had expired and was filed after further delay, which did not establish a bona fide justification. Condonation of delay was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:59:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 533 - CEGAT,  KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100788</link>
      <description>Internal movement of a file between offices and internal proposals to appeal did not, by itself, amount to sufficient cause for condoning a delay of about 64 days in filing the revenue appeal. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was authorised only after the limitation period had expired and was filed after further delay, which did not establish a bona fide justification. Condonation of delay was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>