<?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>2004 (8) TMI 277 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53469</link>
    <description>Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions may be permitted when the appellant later complies with the deposit requirement and shows sufficient cause for the default or delay. The Tribunal treated the power to restore as available in appropriate cases, but not as automatic after long inactivity. Where appellants remained inactive, failed to seek timely extension, or did not satisfy the conditions imposed for restoration, the Tribunal refused relief to protect revenue interests. Restoration was therefore allowed only for appellants who deposited the required amount and gave an acceptable explanation, and rejected in all other cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:06:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 277 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53469</link>
      <description>Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance with pre-deposit directions may be permitted when the appellant later complies with the deposit requirement and shows sufficient cause for the default or delay. The Tribunal treated the power to restore as available in appropriate cases, but not as automatic after long inactivity. Where appellants remained inactive, failed to seek timely extension, or did not satisfy the conditions imposed for restoration, the Tribunal refused relief to protect revenue interests. Restoration was therefore allowed only for appellants who deposited the required amount and gave an acceptable explanation, and rejected in all other cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>