<?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>2003 (4) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107523</link>
    <description>A bona fide mistake in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was treated as relevant for limitation, because that filing date would have meant no delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). Refusal to condone the delay prevented examination of the appeal on merits, so the order treating the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:00:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 355 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107523</link>
      <description>A bona fide mistake in filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was treated as relevant for limitation, because that filing date would have meant no delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). Refusal to condone the delay prevented examination of the appeal on merits, so the order treating the appeal as time-barred was set aside. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on merits after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107523</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>