<?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 543 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204277</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay in filing an appeal was refused where the authorisation produced covered only the appeal and stay petition, not the condonation application, and the explanation for the 11-day delay was found inadequate. The stated sensitivity of the issue did not justify the further time taken to finalise the appeal papers. As a result, the delay was not condoned and the appeal, together with the stay petition, was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 543 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204277</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay in filing an appeal was refused where the authorisation produced covered only the appeal and stay petition, not the condonation application, and the explanation for the 11-day delay was found inadequate. The stated sensitivity of the issue did not justify the further time taken to finalise the appeal papers. As a result, the delay was not condoned and the appeal, together with the stay petition, was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>