<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1227 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377206</link>
    <description>The tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as evidence showed the appellant received the order on 2.12.2017, contrary to their claim of learning about it in 2018. The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s explanation for the delay not genuine, attributing it to negligence, and subsequently dismissed the appeal in favor of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2019 06:36:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1227 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377206</link>
      <description>The tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as evidence showed the appellant received the order on 2.12.2017, contrary to their claim of learning about it in 2018. The tribunal found the appellant&#039;s explanation for the delay not genuine, attributing it to negligence, and subsequently dismissed the appeal in favor of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>