<?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>2007 (2) TMI 544 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122242</link>
    <description>A 64-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the applicant offered no valid or satisfactory explanation. The asserted reasons, including careful preparation of the grounds of appeal and unspecified circumstances beyond control, were unsupported by concrete material. In the absence of a cogent explanation, the request for a liberal approach in condoning delay was rejected, and the appeal was treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:27:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 544 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122242</link>
      <description>A 64-day delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the applicant offered no valid or satisfactory explanation. The asserted reasons, including careful preparation of the grounds of appeal and unspecified circumstances beyond control, were unsupported by concrete material. In the absence of a cogent explanation, the request for a liberal approach in condoning delay was rejected, and the appeal was treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>