<?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>2004 (2) TMI 398 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110703</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected M/s. Indian Creations Exports&#039; application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal due to insufficient reasons provided for the delay, failure to meet the statutory time limit, and lack of clarity on the alleged fraud by their consultant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and providing clear justifications for seeking condonation of delay in appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:53:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147719" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 398 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110703</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected M/s. Indian Creations Exports&#039; application for condonation of delay in filing an Appeal due to insufficient reasons provided for the delay, failure to meet the statutory time limit, and lack of clarity on the alleged fraud by their consultant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and providing clear justifications for seeking condonation of delay in appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>