https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110200 Condonation of a 45-day delay in filing the appeal was refused because the Revenue failed to establish sufficient cause. The explanation based on alleged confusion from conflicting Tribunal rulings on Special Additional Duty for Nepalese-origin imports was rejected, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on exemption under the relevant customs notifications, not on any Tribunal ruling barring levy. The application was also unsupported by an affidavit explaining the delay. The appeal was therefore held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110200 Condonation of a 45-day delay in filing the appeal was refused because the Revenue failed to establish sufficient cause. The explanation based on alleged confusion from conflicting Tribunal rulings on Special Additional Duty for Nepalese-origin imports was rejected, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on exemption under the relevant customs notifications, not on any Tribunal ruling barring levy. The application was also unsupported by an affidavit explaining the delay. The appeal was therefore held to be time-barred, in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110200