<?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 (3) TMI 506 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111489</link>
    <description>The Tribunal accepted a bona fide explanation for non-appearance on the hearing date, supported by counsel&#039;s affidavit, and treated the absence as neither intentional nor deliberate. On that basis, it found that refusing restoration would unfairly prejudice the applicants despite no fault on their part. The dismissal order for non-prosecution was recalled and the appeals were restored to their original number.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 506 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111489</link>
      <description>The Tribunal accepted a bona fide explanation for non-appearance on the hearing date, supported by counsel&#039;s affidavit, and treated the absence as neither intentional nor deliberate. On that basis, it found that refusing restoration would unfairly prejudice the applicants despite no fault on their part. The dismissal order for non-prosecution was recalled and the appeals were restored to their original number.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111489</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>