<?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 (8) TMI 873 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170528</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and condonation of delay application, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating a sufficient cause for delay condonation. The case involved a reconsideration of the condonation of delay application, with the Tribunal remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a valid reason for seeking condonation and concluded that a change in opinion without substantial circumstances does not warrant delay condonation. Both parties&#039; reliance on specific case laws was distinguished, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling against the Revenue based on the lack of a sufficient cause for delay condonation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:20:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386570" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 873 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170528</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal and condonation of delay application, emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating a sufficient cause for delay condonation. The case involved a reconsideration of the condonation of delay application, with the Tribunal remanding the proceedings back to the Tribunal for further consideration. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of a valid reason for seeking condonation and concluded that a change in opinion without substantial circumstances does not warrant delay condonation. Both parties&#039; reliance on specific case laws was distinguished, with the Tribunal ultimately ruling against the Revenue based on the lack of a sufficient cause for delay condonation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>