<?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>2005 (4) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115130</link>
    <description>Where an appellate order dismissing an appeal for default is not served at the address furnished in the appeal papers, the appellant cannot be blamed for non-receipt. On those facts, even a delay of more than six years in filing the restoration application was excused because improper service explained the lapse. The restoration application was therefore allowed, the earlier default dismissal was recalled, and the appeal was restored for regular hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 10:56:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115130</link>
      <description>Where an appellate order dismissing an appeal for default is not served at the address furnished in the appeal papers, the appellant cannot be blamed for non-receipt. On those facts, even a delay of more than six years in filing the restoration application was excused because improper service explained the lapse. The restoration application was therefore allowed, the earlier default dismissal was recalled, and the appeal was restored for regular hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>