<?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>2009 (8) TMI 868 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125573</link>
    <description>The Tribunal reluctantly allowed the department&#039;s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, despite expressing dissatisfaction with the handling of the appeal process. The delay of 63 days was attributed to the misplacement of the file by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the lack of valid reasons provided for granting the stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:15:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 868 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125573</link>
      <description>The Tribunal reluctantly allowed the department&#039;s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, despite expressing dissatisfaction with the handling of the appeal process. The delay of 63 days was attributed to the misplacement of the file by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for stay of operation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the lack of valid reasons provided for granting the stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>