<?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 (11) TMI 1770 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305654</link>
    <description>An appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant failed to appear and did not comply with an earlier direction to produce evidence after time had been granted for that purpose. The Tribunal treated the non-appearance, coupled with the failure to file documents despite prior adjournment, as evidence of negligence and an unwillingness to prosecute the appeal. On that basis, dismissal for want of prosecution was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2022 09:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=698999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 1770 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305654</link>
      <description>An appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution where the appellant failed to appear and did not comply with an earlier direction to produce evidence after time had been granted for that purpose. The Tribunal treated the non-appearance, coupled with the failure to file documents despite prior adjournment, as evidence of negligence and an unwillingness to prosecute the appeal. On that basis, dismissal for want of prosecution was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>