<?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>2001 (3) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50444</link>
    <description>Where an appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction, subsequent payment of the directed amount can justify restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal applied the principle that belated compliance with the stay order&#039;s deposit requirement removes the basis for dismissal, and the matter should be heard on merits. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for regular hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:14:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 134 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50444</link>
      <description>Where an appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction, subsequent payment of the directed amount can justify restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal applied the principle that belated compliance with the stay order&#039;s deposit requirement removes the basis for dismissal, and the matter should be heard on merits. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for regular hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>