<?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 (11) TMI 399 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205109</link>
    <description>A 36-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant showed justifiable cause for the delay. The explanation that it had been pursuing an identical issue, and could reasonably believe the matter would be settled, was accepted as bona fide. The date of receipt of the impugned order was also verified from departmental communication and matched the appellant&#039;s version. On these facts, the appeal was directed to be taken on record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 399 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205109</link>
      <description>A 36-day delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellant showed justifiable cause for the delay. The explanation that it had been pursuing an identical issue, and could reasonably believe the matter would be settled, was accepted as bona fide. The date of receipt of the impugned order was also verified from departmental communication and matched the appellant&#039;s version. On these facts, the appeal was directed to be taken on record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>