https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219288 The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal restoration request due to a delay of 261 days, attributing it to company circumstances and legal consultations. The Department argued the delay was 170 days, emphasizing the applicant's lack of sufficient cause explanation. Legal precedents were cited, with the Tribunal aligning with the need for justifying delays and diligence. Despite reliance on precedents, the applicant's explanations were deemed insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal itself. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause under Section 35 for condonation of delay, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance on not mechanically condoning delays. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219288 The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal restoration request due to a delay of 261 days, attributing it to company circumstances and legal consultations. The Department argued the delay was 170 days, emphasizing the applicant's lack of sufficient cause explanation. Legal precedents were cited, with the Tribunal aligning with the need for justifying delays and diligence. Despite reliance on precedents, the applicant's explanations were deemed insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the condonation application and the appeal itself. The Tribunal stressed the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause under Section 35 for condonation of delay, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance on not mechanically condoning delays. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219288