<?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>1991 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81001</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay under Sec. 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, in a case where the appellant filed an appeal 108 days late, citing administrative delays. Emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause to excuse delay, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the appellant and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the requirement of demonstrating a valid reason for delay in customs law matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:29:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (1) TMI 259 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81001</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay under Sec. 129A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, in a case where the appellant filed an appeal 108 days late, citing administrative delays. Emphasizing the need for a sufficient cause to excuse delay, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the appellant and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the requirement of demonstrating a valid reason for delay in customs law matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>