<?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 (5) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109514</link>
    <description>A trivial one-day delay in filing a declaration under Rule 57T should not, by itself, defeat credit where the statutory scheme permits condonation of delay up to three months. Refusal to condone required adequate reasons, and none were given by the lower authorities. Credit was therefore not justified in being denied solely on the ground of the minimal procedural delay, and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109514</link>
      <description>A trivial one-day delay in filing a declaration under Rule 57T should not, by itself, defeat credit where the statutory scheme permits condonation of delay up to three months. Refusal to condone required adequate reasons, and none were given by the lower authorities. Credit was therefore not justified in being denied solely on the ground of the minimal procedural delay, and the assessee obtained consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>