<?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>2005 (4) TMI 321 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114980</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to be construed liberally so that substantial justice is advanced, and delay is not ative by length alone. A condonation request should be assessed on bona fide conduct, absence of deliberate inaction or gross negligence, and a pragmatic explanation, particularly in governmental matters where file movement and administrative handling may cause delay. On the facts described, the record had moved through departmental channels, was lost and later traced, and further steps were then taken to pursue the matter. The text concludes that the refusal to condone was unduly technical, and the delay should have been condoned so that leave to appeal could be granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2025 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (4) TMI 321 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114980</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 requires &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to be construed liberally so that substantial justice is advanced, and delay is not ative by length alone. A condonation request should be assessed on bona fide conduct, absence of deliberate inaction or gross negligence, and a pragmatic explanation, particularly in governmental matters where file movement and administrative handling may cause delay. On the facts described, the record had moved through departmental channels, was lost and later traced, and further steps were then taken to pursue the matter. The text concludes that the refusal to condone was unduly technical, and the delay should have been condoned so that leave to appeal could be granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>