<?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>2005 (3) TMI 178 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53838</link>
    <description>Belated compliance with a Tribunal-ordered pre-deposit did not justify restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The required amount was deposited only after the expiry of the time fixed, and no extension of time had been sought before the deadline. The Tribunal noted that compliance with its stay order had to be made within the prescribed period or within a duly extended period, and rejected the restoration application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:07:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92315" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 178 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53838</link>
      <description>Belated compliance with a Tribunal-ordered pre-deposit did not justify restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance. The required amount was deposited only after the expiry of the time fixed, and no extension of time had been sought before the deadline. The Tribunal noted that compliance with its stay order had to be made within the prescribed period or within a duly extended period, and rejected the restoration application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>