<?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>1984 (7) TMI 379 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167095</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The applicant&#039;s argument of non-receipt of the order and delay in filing the appeal was not substantiated, leading to the rejection of the condonation request. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and providing valid justifications for delays in legal proceedings, ultimately upholding the need for timely filing of appeals within the prescribed period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 17:04:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 379 - CEGAT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167095</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The applicant&#039;s argument of non-receipt of the order and delay in filing the appeal was not substantiated, leading to the rejection of the condonation request. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and providing valid justifications for delays in legal proceedings, ultimately upholding the need for timely filing of appeals within the prescribed period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>