<?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>2001 (2) TMI 3 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36</link>
    <description>A short delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation was considered plausible, the dispute was treated as arguable, and no prior hearing had been afforded before dismissal on limitation. The Tribunal set aside the limitation-based rejection and remitted the matter for disposal on merits after hearing the appellants, emphasising that a small delay should not defeat substantive adjudication where the explanation is reasonable and procedural fairness is lacking.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 3 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36</link>
      <description>A short delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the explanation was considered plausible, the dispute was treated as arguable, and no prior hearing had been afforded before dismissal on limitation. The Tribunal set aside the limitation-based rejection and remitted the matter for disposal on merits after hearing the appellants, emphasising that a small delay should not defeat substantive adjudication where the explanation is reasonable and procedural fairness is lacking.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>