<?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 (6) TMI 375 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111983</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of a Final Order due to procedural deficiencies. The appellant&#039;s failure to file the application within six months of the amended provision coming into force, lack of verification or affidavit by the party, and the application being signed only by the Advocate were key reasons for the rejection. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines in such restoration applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:29:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 375 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111983</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of a Final Order due to procedural deficiencies. The appellant&#039;s failure to file the application within six months of the amended provision coming into force, lack of verification or affidavit by the party, and the application being signed only by the Advocate were key reasons for the rejection. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and timelines in such restoration applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>