<?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 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81257</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal must be supported by sufficient cause to justify condonation; a prolonged delay explained only by the need to ascertain current goods prices before deciding whether to appeal was found unacceptable, as it showed negligence and casual handling of the matter. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay could not be condoned, and the appeal remained barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (3) TMI 255 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81257</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal must be supported by sufficient cause to justify condonation; a prolonged delay explained only by the need to ascertain current goods prices before deciding whether to appeal was found unacceptable, as it showed negligence and casual handling of the matter. In the absence of sufficient cause, the delay could not be condoned, and the appeal remained barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>