<?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 500 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112789</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of a two-year delay in filing an appeal, as the appellants failed to inform the Commissioner (Appeals) about their change of address, despite the impugned order being dispatched to their registered office. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellants insufficient to justify the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 17:20:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112789</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of a two-year delay in filing an appeal, as the appellants failed to inform the Commissioner (Appeals) about their change of address, despite the impugned order being dispatched to their registered office. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellants insufficient to justify the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>