<?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>2012 (10) TMI 819 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217881</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the condonation applications and subsequent appeals against the rejection of refund claims due to a delay of 405 days in filing. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay, considering the conduct of parties and whether the delay could have been avoided with normal care. Lack of bona fide reasons for the delay led to the dismissal, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and demonstrating valid grounds for condonation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=191255" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 819 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217881</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the condonation applications and subsequent appeals against the rejection of refund claims due to a delay of 405 days in filing. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay, considering the conduct of parties and whether the delay could have been avoided with normal care. Lack of bona fide reasons for the delay led to the dismissal, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and demonstrating valid grounds for condonation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>