<?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>2001 (4) TMI 481 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97805</link>
    <description>Condonation of a 288-day delay in filing a revenue appeal requires a full explanation showing sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. Administrative difficulty, staff vacancies, or commissionerate reorganisation, without a complete and credible account of the delay, are not enough. On the facts stated, the explanation did not justify the prolonged delay, so the delay was not condoned and the appeal was treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:33:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 481 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97805</link>
      <description>Condonation of a 288-day delay in filing a revenue appeal requires a full explanation showing sufficient cause for the entire period of delay. Administrative difficulty, staff vacancies, or commissionerate reorganisation, without a complete and credible account of the delay, are not enough. On the facts stated, the explanation did not justify the prolonged delay, so the delay was not condoned and the appeal was treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>