<?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>1987 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72860</link>
    <description>A Government appeal filed 16 days late was held not to satisfy the test of sufficient cause under the appellate limitation rule. The Tribunal found that only the post-limitation delay was relevant, but the explanation showed lethargic and mechanical movement of the file, no convincing reason for the period after approval, and no unavoidable administrative difficulty. Holidays and last-day typing outside the office did not account for the delay, and the liberal approach applied in other government-delay cases was distinguished because no comparable collective decision-making process was shown. The appeal remained barred by limitation and was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 15:06:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 219 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72860</link>
      <description>A Government appeal filed 16 days late was held not to satisfy the test of sufficient cause under the appellate limitation rule. The Tribunal found that only the post-limitation delay was relevant, but the explanation showed lethargic and mechanical movement of the file, no convincing reason for the period after approval, and no unavoidable administrative difficulty. Holidays and last-day typing outside the office did not account for the delay, and the liberal approach applied in other government-delay cases was distinguished because no comparable collective decision-making process was shown. The appeal remained barred by limitation and was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>