<?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>1985 (5) TMI 217 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167349</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal due to timeliness issues in filing before the Appellate Collector, the inapplicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude time, rejection of exclusion based on preparatory steps, and the lack of personal hearing not affecting the validity of the Collector (Appeals) order. The Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to time limits for filing appeals and the absence of discretion for condonation of delays in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:57:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 217 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167349</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal due to timeliness issues in filing before the Appellate Collector, the inapplicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude time, rejection of exclusion based on preparatory steps, and the lack of personal hearing not affecting the validity of the Collector (Appeals) order. The Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to time limits for filing appeals and the absence of discretion for condonation of delays in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>