<?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 (5) TMI 772 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126647</link>
    <description>Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was examined in light of the applicants&#039; prior awareness of the proceedings and the transfer of business. The record, including the applicants&#039; own correspondence, showed that they had been informed about the litigation and departmental action well before the appeal was filed, yet no satisfactory explanation covered the relevant periods of inaction. On that factual basis, sufficient cause was not established and the request for condonation of delay was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:55:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 772 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126647</link>
      <description>Sufficient cause for condonation of delay was examined in light of the applicants&#039; prior awareness of the proceedings and the transfer of business. The record, including the applicants&#039; own correspondence, showed that they had been informed about the litigation and departmental action well before the appeal was filed, yet no satisfactory explanation covered the relevant periods of inaction. On that factual basis, sufficient cause was not established and the request for condonation of delay was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>