https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95038 A three-month delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellants showed a bona fide belief that the impugned order did not require immediate challenge. That belief arose from an interim High Court stay under which duty had been assessed on actual production basis, and the departmental authorities had acted on that basis. The Tribunal accepted that, while the abatement claim was pending, the appellants reasonably believed the stay continued, so the order disallowing abatement was treated as not immediately operative. On that explanation, the delay was held satisfactorily explained and the condonation application was allowed. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:39:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95038 A three-month delay in filing the appeal was condoned because the appellants showed a bona fide belief that the impugned order did not require immediate challenge. That belief arose from an interim High Court stay under which duty had been assessed on actual production basis, and the departmental authorities had acted on that basis. The Tribunal accepted that, while the abatement claim was pending, the appellants reasonably believed the stay continued, so the order disallowing abatement was treated as not immediately operative. On that explanation, the delay was held satisfactorily explained and the condonation application was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95038