<?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>2016 (9) TMI 1419 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198780</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied further adjournment to the appellant seeking Condonation of Delay (COD) due to counsel&#039;s illness. Despite inadequate reasons for the 498-day delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to contest on merits but imposed a Rs.25,000 cost to the respondent/Department for condoning the delay. Compliance was required within four weeks for the COD application to be approved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2018 21:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508189" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 1419 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198780</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied further adjournment to the appellant seeking Condonation of Delay (COD) due to counsel&#039;s illness. Despite inadequate reasons for the 498-day delay in filing the appeal, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to contest on merits but imposed a Rs.25,000 cost to the respondent/Department for condoning the delay. Compliance was required within four weeks for the COD application to be approved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>