<?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>1992 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82256</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was not condoned because the explanation of inter-departmental movement of papers and misplacement of records did not satisfactorily cover the entire period of delay. As sufficient cause was not established, the appeal was treated as barred by limitation and dismissed, along with the stay petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jul 2011 18:41:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82256</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was not condoned because the explanation of inter-departmental movement of papers and misplacement of records did not satisfactorily cover the entire period of delay. As sufficient cause was not established, the appeal was treated as barred by limitation and dismissed, along with the stay petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>