<?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 (2) TMI 667 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115914</link>
    <description>Time spent by appellants in pursuing a remedy before the Revisionary Authority was excluded while computing delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After exclusion, the residual delay was found to be short, and the departmental representative accepted that the period before the Revisionary Authority should not count. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:19:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 667 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115914</link>
      <description>Time spent by appellants in pursuing a remedy before the Revisionary Authority was excluded while computing delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. After exclusion, the residual delay was found to be short, and the departmental representative accepted that the period before the Revisionary Authority should not count. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal exercised discretion to condone the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>