<?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 (4) TMI 535 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122299</link>
    <description>The limitation question turned on whether the appeal had in fact been filed within time, even though it was later returned by the Registry. The record showed that the appeal was presented within the stipulated period and that the procedural defects were cured before the Registry&#039;s return letter. On that basis, the earlier filing remained material for limitation purposes, and the delay was condoned. The application for condonation of delay was accordingly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:59:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 535 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122299</link>
      <description>The limitation question turned on whether the appeal had in fact been filed within time, even though it was later returned by the Registry. The record showed that the appeal was presented within the stipulated period and that the procedural defects were cured before the Registry&#039;s return letter. On that basis, the earlier filing remained material for limitation purposes, and the delay was condoned. The application for condonation of delay was accordingly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>