<?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>2002 (1) TMI 1099 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104682</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant&#039;s explanation was unsupported by evidence. The plea that it had waited for restoration of its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, as no copy of the restoration application or any order rejecting it was produced. The Tribunal found that the long delay was therefore not satisfactorily explained and declined to exercise discretion in favour of condonation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 18:50:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=141721" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1099 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104682</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant&#039;s explanation was unsupported by evidence. The plea that it had waited for restoration of its appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, as no copy of the restoration application or any order rejecting it was produced. The Tribunal found that the long delay was therefore not satisfactorily explained and declined to exercise discretion in favour of condonation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>