<?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 (11) TMI 412 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110364</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, ruling that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays exceeding thirty days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Despite arguments citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal found them irrelevant and rejected the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:35:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 412 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110364</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, ruling that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays exceeding thirty days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Despite arguments citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal found them irrelevant and rejected the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>