<?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>1989 (3) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42679</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the delay was short, the explanation was not wholly attributable to negligence, and the dispute involved a substantial refund claim. The Court treated these circumstances as sufficient to allow the matter to proceed on merits, but made the relief conditional by imposing exemplary costs. The appeal was therefore restored for hearing, subject to payment of costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:58:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81208" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 142 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42679</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the delay was short, the explanation was not wholly attributable to negligence, and the dispute involved a substantial refund claim. The Court treated these circumstances as sufficient to allow the matter to proceed on merits, but made the relief conditional by imposing exemplary costs. The appeal was therefore restored for hearing, subject to payment of costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>