https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93964 A 28-day delay in filing a Revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation of late receipt of the Chemical Examiner's opinion did not amount to sufficient cause. The dispute concerned includibility of accessories in the value of batteries, and the lower appellate authority had already examined that question on settled precedents. The Chemical Examiner's opinion was found to have no bearing on the issue, so the delay application was rejected and the appeal could not proceed. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:16:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93964 A 28-day delay in filing a Revenue appeal was not condoned because the explanation of late receipt of the Chemical Examiner's opinion did not amount to sufficient cause. The dispute concerned includibility of accessories in the value of batteries, and the lower appellate authority had already examined that question on settled precedents. The Chemical Examiner's opinion was found to have no bearing on the issue, so the delay application was rejected and the appeal could not proceed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93964