<?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>1999 (11) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94471</link>
    <description>Delay in filing appeal against Assistant Collector&#039;s order confirming demand resulted in appellants being found guilty of laches by Tribunal. Despite claiming lack of awareness due to closed factory, delay was noted and deemed unjustified. Application for condonation of delay based on factory closure and lack of order recipient was dismissed by Commissioner, citing Central Excise Act. Tribunal upheld dismissal, emphasizing appellants&#039; failure to act promptly or provide valid grounds for condonation. Failure to appear before Assistant Collector and lack of valid reason further weighed against appellants in decision. Appellants&#039; claim for deduction under Sec. 4(4)(d)(ii) was part of challenge against demand but not successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:51:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=131531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (11) TMI 416 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94471</link>
      <description>Delay in filing appeal against Assistant Collector&#039;s order confirming demand resulted in appellants being found guilty of laches by Tribunal. Despite claiming lack of awareness due to closed factory, delay was noted and deemed unjustified. Application for condonation of delay based on factory closure and lack of order recipient was dismissed by Commissioner, citing Central Excise Act. Tribunal upheld dismissal, emphasizing appellants&#039; failure to act promptly or provide valid grounds for condonation. Failure to appear before Assistant Collector and lack of valid reason further weighed against appellants in decision. Appellants&#039; claim for deduction under Sec. 4(4)(d)(ii) was part of challenge against demand but not successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>