<?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 201 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50755</link>
    <description>A marginal or non-existent delay in re-presenting an appeal should be dealt with liberally where the appellant explains that the filing was within time and only the format was corrected to meet departmental requirements. On those facts, rejection of the appeal on a technical delay ground was not justified. The order refusing to entertain the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:10:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 201 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50755</link>
      <description>A marginal or non-existent delay in re-presenting an appeal should be dealt with liberally where the appellant explains that the filing was within time and only the format was corrected to meet departmental requirements. On those facts, rejection of the appeal on a technical delay ground was not justified. The order refusing to entertain the appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50755</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>