<?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>1999 (7) TMI 662 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171527</link>
    <description>A civil appeal was dismissed as time-barred because there was a 307-day delay in filing and no satisfactory explanation was given. The Court did not examine the substantive central excise question and expressly left the question of law open. The order therefore has no determination on the merits and operates only as a dismissal for unexplained delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:12:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391123" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 662 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171527</link>
      <description>A civil appeal was dismissed as time-barred because there was a 307-day delay in filing and no satisfactory explanation was given. The Court did not examine the substantive central excise question and expressly left the question of law open. The order therefore has no determination on the merits and operates only as a dismissal for unexplained delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171527</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>