<?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>2000 (3) TMI 114 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50005</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision against the assessees, denying them a refund of duty paid during a specific period. The request to set aside the ex-parte order due to the Counsel&#039;s non-appearance was rejected, as insufficient cause was demonstrated. Precedents emphasizing the need for valid reasons for non-appearance to recall orders were cited, distinguishing the present case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:54:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88485" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 114 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50005</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision against the assessees, denying them a refund of duty paid during a specific period. The request to set aside the ex-parte order due to the Counsel&#039;s non-appearance was rejected, as insufficient cause was demonstrated. Precedents emphasizing the need for valid reasons for non-appearance to recall orders were cited, distinguishing the present case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>