<?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>1996 (3) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44240</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal despite a delay of about three months in filing it before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal could have condoned the delay and directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal without dismissing it on the ground of limitation. The Court highlighted the importance of utilizing appropriate legal remedies promptly and maintaining the validity of the bank guarantee until the appeal&#039;s disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 10:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 133 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44240</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal despite a delay of about three months in filing it before the Tribunal. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal could have condoned the delay and directed the Tribunal to entertain the appeal without dismissing it on the ground of limitation. The Court highlighted the importance of utilizing appropriate legal remedies promptly and maintaining the validity of the bank guarantee until the appeal&#039;s disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>