<?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 (6) TMI 720 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176419</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the applicant&#039;s failure to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the consultant&#039;s maternity and health issues. The Tribunal emphasized that merely handing over documents to the consultant does not constitute filing unless signed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed based on the applicant&#039;s negligence and inaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:11:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410042" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 720 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176419</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the applicant&#039;s failure to condone the delay of 375 days in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the consultant&#039;s maternity and health issues. The Tribunal emphasized that merely handing over documents to the consultant does not constitute filing unless signed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were dismissed based on the applicant&#039;s negligence and inaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>