<?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 (7) TMI 1133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153689</link>
    <description>Delay condonation before the Commissioner (Appeals) depends on a credible showing of sufficient cause supported by contemporaneous evidence. Here, the appellants&#039; explanation that they believed the matter had lapsed after withdrawal of a second show cause notice, and that appeal papers were misplaced in counsel&#039;s office, was rejected because the order had been received, no affidavit from the advocate or junior was produced, and no steps were shown to trace the papers or obtain another copy. The cited condonation precedents were distinguished on evidence. The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:14:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170724" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153689</link>
      <description>Delay condonation before the Commissioner (Appeals) depends on a credible showing of sufficient cause supported by contemporaneous evidence. Here, the appellants&#039; explanation that they believed the matter had lapsed after withdrawal of a second show cause notice, and that appeal papers were misplaced in counsel&#039;s office, was rejected because the order had been received, no affidavit from the advocate or junior was produced, and no steps were shown to trace the papers or obtain another copy. The cited condonation precedents were distinguished on evidence. The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>