<?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 (12) TMI 498 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114902</link>
    <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution requires a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause. The applicant relied on illness of counsel, but the explanation was found inadequate because the appellant could have appeared personally when counsel was unavailable and no proper reason was given for absence on the hearing dates. On that basis, the request for restoration was rejected as lacking substance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 11:25:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151901" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 498 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114902</link>
      <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution requires a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause. The applicant relied on illness of counsel, but the explanation was found inadequate because the appellant could have appeared personally when counsel was unavailable and no proper reason was given for absence on the hearing dates. On that basis, the request for restoration was rejected as lacking substance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114902</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>