<?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 (7) TMI 384 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202277</link>
    <description>The Tribunal granted condonation of delay for appeals filed before it but rejected appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to excessive delay, citing legal precedents on time limits for condonation. The Tribunal doubted proper service of the Commissioner&#039;s order and allowed condonation, despite lack of proof of service by the Department. The delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed beyond condonable limits, leading to rejection based on established legal precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 384 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202277</link>
      <description>The Tribunal granted condonation of delay for appeals filed before it but rejected appeals filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to excessive delay, citing legal precedents on time limits for condonation. The Tribunal doubted proper service of the Commissioner&#039;s order and allowed condonation, despite lack of proof of service by the Department. The delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed beyond condonable limits, leading to rejection based on established legal precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>