<?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>2014 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253782</link>
    <description>The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the first respondent&#039;s order and granting the delay execution petition filed by the appellant. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the dismissal by the first respondent and found the delay in filing the appeal justified due to issues with the receipt of the order. The court concluded that the delay of 256 days could be condoned, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 126 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253782</link>
      <description>The court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, setting aside the first respondent&#039;s order and granting the delay execution petition filed by the appellant. The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the dismissal by the first respondent and found the delay in filing the appeal justified due to issues with the receipt of the order. The court concluded that the delay of 256 days could be condoned, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>