https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87184 Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown within the limitation period. The assessee's explanation that it awaited an appealable order and acted only after correspondence with the authorities was rejected, as there was no evidence of prior dialogue preventing timely filing and no cause arising within time. The Tribunal treated the assessment made on RT 12 returns under Rule 173F and Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules as a statutory order requiring the prescribed remedy to be pursued within the limitation period. The plea of bona fide belief was also rejected, and the appeals failed with the refusal to condone delay. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Sep 2011 12:49:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87184 Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown within the limitation period. The assessee's explanation that it awaited an appealable order and acted only after correspondence with the authorities was rejected, as there was no evidence of prior dialogue preventing timely filing and no cause arising within time. The Tribunal treated the assessment made on RT 12 returns under Rule 173F and Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules as a statutory order requiring the prescribed remedy to be pursued within the limitation period. The plea of bona fide belief was also rejected, and the appeals failed with the refusal to condone delay. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 26 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87184