<?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>1990 (8) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42823</link>
    <description>The Court treated the substantial delay in filing the appeal as condonable on the peculiar facts of the refund claim for countervailing duty on children&#039;s film. It held that the appellate matter should not be shut out on limitation alone and directed that the refund dispute be examined on merits. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation was therefore set aside, and the appellate authority was required to dispose of the appeal substantively.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81352" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 145 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42823</link>
      <description>The Court treated the substantial delay in filing the appeal as condonable on the peculiar facts of the refund claim for countervailing duty on children&#039;s film. It held that the appellate matter should not be shut out on limitation alone and directed that the refund dispute be examined on merits. The dismissal of the appeal on limitation was therefore set aside, and the appellate authority was required to dispose of the appeal substantively.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>