<?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>2012 (9) TMI 986 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178947</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the COD application, Stay petition, and appeal due to the appellant&#039;s failure to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay of more than five months in filing the appeal under Sec.35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite attributing the delay to the misplacement of papers during office shifting, the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the subsequent delay after receiving the impugned order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:51:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 986 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178947</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the COD application, Stay petition, and appeal due to the appellant&#039;s failure to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the delay of more than five months in filing the appeal under Sec.35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite attributing the delay to the misplacement of papers during office shifting, the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the subsequent delay after receiving the impugned order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>