<?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 (9) TMI 486 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105004</link>
    <description>Delay in complying with a pre-deposit order under the Central Excise Act was not condoned where the ordered amount was paid only after about one and a half years. The Tribunal noted that short delays in complying with stay conditions may be condoned when payment is made within a reasonable time, but held that this delay was beyond a reasonable period, especially compared with the shorter delay in the cited precedent. Restoration of the appeal was therefore refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:33:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142043" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 486 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105004</link>
      <description>Delay in complying with a pre-deposit order under the Central Excise Act was not condoned where the ordered amount was paid only after about one and a half years. The Tribunal noted that short delays in complying with stay conditions may be condoned when payment is made within a reasonable time, but held that this delay was beyond a reasonable period, especially compared with the shorter delay in the cited precedent. Restoration of the appeal was therefore refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>