<?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>2013 (6) TMI 296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234471</link>
    <description>The Judge found a factual mistake in the order regarding the date of hearing, causing confusion for the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone the 16-day delay in filing the appeal, but the Judge considered it genuine and within the condonable period. The Judge held that the refusal to condone the delay was an error and remanded the matter for further consideration on the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:12:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234471</link>
      <description>The Judge found a factual mistake in the order regarding the date of hearing, causing confusion for the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone the 16-day delay in filing the appeal, but the Judge considered it genuine and within the condonable period. The Judge held that the refusal to condone the delay was an error and remanded the matter for further consideration on the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>