<?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>2002 (4) TMI 786 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106282</link>
    <description>A belated appeal will not be entertained unless the appellant shows sufficient cause covering the entire period of delay with a convincing and reasonable explanation. Here, the delay was attributed to the aftermath of the Ahmedabad earthquake and the claim that the order had been misplaced out of fear, but the further delay after normalcy was restored was found unreasonable and unsupported by a credible basis. The explanation therefore failed to establish sufficient cause, so the delay was not condoned. As the appeal failed on the threshold issue of delay, the connected request for waiver of deposit of the penalty was also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:28:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143316" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 786 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106282</link>
      <description>A belated appeal will not be entertained unless the appellant shows sufficient cause covering the entire period of delay with a convincing and reasonable explanation. Here, the delay was attributed to the aftermath of the Ahmedabad earthquake and the claim that the order had been misplaced out of fear, but the further delay after normalcy was restored was found unreasonable and unsupported by a credible basis. The explanation therefore failed to establish sufficient cause, so the delay was not condoned. As the appeal failed on the threshold issue of delay, the connected request for waiver of deposit of the penalty was also rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106282</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>