<?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 (6) TMI 528 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107079</link>
    <description>An earlier dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance was treated as liable to recall where the appellant showed that the final order had not been enclosed with the covering letter and that steps were later taken to obtain the order and pursue the matter. Those facts were accepted as adequately explaining the delay and absence, and the appeal was restored to its original number for regular hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:56:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144098" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 528 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107079</link>
      <description>An earlier dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance was treated as liable to recall where the appellant showed that the final order had not been enclosed with the covering letter and that steps were later taken to obtain the order and pursue the matter. Those facts were accepted as adequately explaining the delay and absence, and the appeal was restored to its original number for regular hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>