https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104765 Delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained, as closure of the mill and the absence of an appellate forum indication in the impugned order did not account for the prolonged lapse, particularly where the applicants had been in repeated correspondence with the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal therefore rejected condonation of delay, and the stay application and appeal were dismissed as time barred. en-us Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:08:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104765 Delay of 418 days in filing the appeal was not satisfactorily explained, as closure of the mill and the absence of an appellate forum indication in the impugned order did not account for the prolonged lapse, particularly where the applicants had been in repeated correspondence with the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal therefore rejected condonation of delay, and the stay application and appeal were dismissed as time barred. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104765