<?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>2000 (3) TMI 737 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98178</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for missing the statutory limitation period. The only explanation was an asserted bona fide mistake in pursuing revision before the Central Government, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support the pleaded facts and was not satisfied that the mistaken-remedy explanation justified the delay. As a result, the condonation application was rejected and the appeal remained time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:24:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 737 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98178</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was not condoned because the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for missing the statutory limitation period. The only explanation was an asserted bona fide mistake in pursuing revision before the Central Government, but the Tribunal found no evidence to support the pleaded facts and was not satisfied that the mistaken-remedy explanation justified the delay. As a result, the condonation application was rejected and the appeal remained time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98178</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>