<?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 339 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115262</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the statement of facts could only be submitted as directed by the High Court and rejected the request for enlargement concerning individuals not specified by the High Court. The Miscellaneous Application for enlargement filed by Raj Kumar Jaiswal was dismissed as there was no basis for enlarging the statement for other individuals like Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and Haider Ali, who had not contested the reference made before the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 12:40:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 339 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115262</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the statement of facts could only be submitted as directed by the High Court and rejected the request for enlargement concerning individuals not specified by the High Court. The Miscellaneous Application for enlargement filed by Raj Kumar Jaiswal was dismissed as there was no basis for enlarging the statement for other individuals like Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal and Haider Ali, who had not contested the reference made before the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>