<?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>1996 (3) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85223</link>
    <description>Sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal was established where the appeal papers remained with counsel after a writ petition was pursued and the file was misplaced in the chamber. On those facts, the delay was condonable under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s conduct after filing the appeal was held irrelevant to condonation. The matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:04:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122290" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 253 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85223</link>
      <description>Sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal was established where the appeal papers remained with counsel after a writ petition was pursued and the file was misplaced in the chamber. On those facts, the delay was condonable under the proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellant&#039;s conduct after filing the appeal was held irrelevant to condonation. The matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) for disposal on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>