<?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 (1) TMI 621 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119377</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the condonation of a 1028-day delay in filing an appeal against an order imposing a penalty under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. Despite arguments related to a criminal complaint and legal precedents on sufficient cause, the Tribunal found the reasons insufficient and emphasized the lack of valid justification for the delay. The appeal was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish a substantial cause for the delay, leading to the penalty being upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:18:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 621 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119377</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the condonation of a 1028-day delay in filing an appeal against an order imposing a penalty under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. Despite arguments related to a criminal complaint and legal precedents on sufficient cause, the Tribunal found the reasons insufficient and emphasized the lack of valid justification for the delay. The appeal was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish a substantial cause for the delay, leading to the penalty being upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>