<?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>1996 (10) TMI 433 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114156</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the Commissioner of Customs&#039; decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The appellant&#039;s argument that they were unaware of the adjudication order and the delay was caused by their counsel misplacing the case file was not accepted. Despite citing precedents supporting the condonation of delay in similar situations, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time after receiving the adjudication order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the verified records and lack of evidence supporting the appellant&#039;s contentions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 17:17:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 433 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114156</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, upholding the Commissioner of Customs&#039; decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The appellant&#039;s argument that they were unaware of the adjudication order and the delay was caused by their counsel misplacing the case file was not accepted. Despite citing precedents supporting the condonation of delay in similar situations, the Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time after receiving the adjudication order. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on the verified records and lack of evidence supporting the appellant&#039;s contentions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114156</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>