<?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>1994 (12) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83858</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the Reference Application was not condoned because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the period beyond limitation. The file movement reflected only routine departmental processing, with substantial unexplained gaps and no circumstance beyond the applicant&#039;s control. As the explanation disclosed negligence rather than a satisfactory justification in a time-bound matter, the application was dismissed as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:21:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121002" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 170 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83858</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the Reference Application was not condoned because the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the period beyond limitation. The file movement reflected only routine departmental processing, with substantial unexplained gaps and no circumstance beyond the applicant&#039;s control. As the explanation disclosed negligence rather than a satisfactory justification in a time-bound matter, the application was dismissed as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83858</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>