<?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 563 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112895</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, which was delayed by 2,054 days due to the misplacement of the original order during the shifting of the appellant&#039;s office. Despite arguments of a strong case on merits, the Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s negligence in pursuing the appeal evident, as they were aware of the impugned order and its consequences. As no valid cause was presented for the significant delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 14:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 563 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112895</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, which was delayed by 2,054 days due to the misplacement of the original order during the shifting of the appellant&#039;s office. Despite arguments of a strong case on merits, the Tribunal found the appellant&#039;s negligence in pursuing the appeal evident, as they were aware of the impugned order and its consequences. As no valid cause was presented for the significant delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>