<?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 613 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204628</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications due to the appellant&#039;s failure to participate in the hearing process, despite benefiting from the waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment highlighted the abuse of notificational benefit by the appellant and emphasized the importance of active engagement in legal proceedings. The Tribunal found no valid reason to grant an adjournment due to the absence of the main counsel, leading to the dismissal of the applications and a decision in favor of the Revenue&#039;s interests.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204628</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the applications due to the appellant&#039;s failure to participate in the hearing process, despite benefiting from the waiver of pre-deposit. The judgment highlighted the abuse of notificational benefit by the appellant and emphasized the importance of active engagement in legal proceedings. The Tribunal found no valid reason to grant an adjournment due to the absence of the main counsel, leading to the dismissal of the applications and a decision in favor of the Revenue&#039;s interests.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>