<?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>2010 (9) TMI 939 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154068</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking condonation of a 43-day delay in filing appeals, as no sufficient cause was found. The consultant&#039;s unavailability during the period was not considered a justifiable reason for the delay, and it was suggested that another consultant should have been engaged. The explanations provided were deemed unconvincing, leading to the dismissal of both applications and subsequent dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:13:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 939 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154068</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking condonation of a 43-day delay in filing appeals, as no sufficient cause was found. The consultant&#039;s unavailability during the period was not considered a justifiable reason for the delay, and it was suggested that another consultant should have been engaged. The explanations provided were deemed unconvincing, leading to the dismissal of both applications and subsequent dismissal of the appeals as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>