<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1199 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362372</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Condonation of Delay application and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay. Personal leave of an employee was deemed insufficient justification under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as mechanisms existed for others to manage affairs in their absence. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and precedents for timely resolution of legal disputes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2018 21:15:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=524679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1199 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362372</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Condonation of Delay application and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need for valid reasons for seeking condonation of delay. Personal leave of an employee was deemed insufficient justification under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as mechanisms existed for others to manage affairs in their absence. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and precedents for timely resolution of legal disputes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>