<?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 (8) TMI 348 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107919</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was explained as arising from the appeal papers being entrusted to a consultant who could not attend to the matter because of his daughter&#039;s serious illness and his own subsequent hospitalization. The Tribunal found this explanation satisfactory, treated the facts as distinguishable from the authorities cited by the Revenue, and condoned the delay. The stay petitions were then posted for hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:07:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144936" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 348 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107919</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was explained as arising from the appeal papers being entrusted to a consultant who could not attend to the matter because of his daughter&#039;s serious illness and his own subsequent hospitalization. The Tribunal found this explanation satisfactory, treated the facts as distinguishable from the authorities cited by the Revenue, and condoned the delay. The stay petitions were then posted for hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>