<?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 (10) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114435</link>
    <description>A 102-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the Revenue failed to give a day-to-day explanation for the delay. The Tribunal held that internal file movement, official procedure and inadvertence, without a specific and satisfactory account of the entire period of delay, do not justify exercise of discretion in favour of condonation. As no adequate cause was shown, the condonation application was dismissed and the appeal consequently failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:24:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 375 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114435</link>
      <description>A 102-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the Revenue failed to give a day-to-day explanation for the delay. The Tribunal held that internal file movement, official procedure and inadvertence, without a specific and satisfactory account of the entire period of delay, do not justify exercise of discretion in favour of condonation. As no adequate cause was shown, the condonation application was dismissed and the appeal consequently failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>