<?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 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118857</link>
    <description>A delay of about 10 months in filing an appeal was condoned where the appellant showed that the previous advocate had suffered a serious accident and was hospitalised, and the appellant later discovered that no appeal had been filed. The Tribunal accepted this explanation as sufficient cause on the facts, applying the principle that default by counsel may justify condonation where the circumstances are peculiar and the explanation is credible. The delay was therefore condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:00:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 445 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118857</link>
      <description>A delay of about 10 months in filing an appeal was condoned where the appellant showed that the previous advocate had suffered a serious accident and was hospitalised, and the appellant later discovered that no appeal had been filed. The Tribunal accepted this explanation as sufficient cause on the facts, applying the principle that default by counsel may justify condonation where the circumstances are peculiar and the explanation is credible. The delay was therefore condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>