<?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 548 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122249</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to erroneous advice from the advocate, emphasizing the genuine mistake made. The delay of 190 days was attributed to the advocate&#039;s advice not to appeal initially, which was later rectified after a recovery notice was issued by the department. The Tribunal considered similar cases and granted condonation, directing the stay application to be listed in due course.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:59:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159238" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (2) TMI 548 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122249</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to erroneous advice from the advocate, emphasizing the genuine mistake made. The delay of 190 days was attributed to the advocate&#039;s advice not to appeal initially, which was later rectified after a recovery notice was issued by the department. The Tribunal considered similar cases and granted condonation, directing the stay application to be listed in due course.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>