<?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>2003 (9) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46901</link>
    <description>Delay in filing appeals against Tribunal orders was condoned because the Court treated the statutory right of appeal as significant and accepted the explanation for delay despite finding the petitioner&#039;s conduct unworthy of equitable indulgence. The condonation was granted on a lenient approach, but only subject to payment of costs within the stipulated time. The appeals were then ordered to be registered and decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:42:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 101 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46901</link>
      <description>Delay in filing appeals against Tribunal orders was condoned because the Court treated the statutory right of appeal as significant and accepted the explanation for delay despite finding the petitioner&#039;s conduct unworthy of equitable indulgence. The condonation was granted on a lenient approach, but only subject to payment of costs within the stipulated time. The appeals were then ordered to be registered and decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>