https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219779 The Tribunal refused to condone the 388-day delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the significance of adhering to statutory limitation periods. The appellant's reasons were deemed insufficient, reflecting negligence rather than substantial cause. The Court emphasized the need to balance judicial discretion in excusing delays while upholding the purpose of limitation laws. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were dismissed as time-barred due to the appellant's failure to provide justifiable grounds for the delay. en-us Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219779 The Tribunal refused to condone the 388-day delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the significance of adhering to statutory limitation periods. The appellant's reasons were deemed insufficient, reflecting negligence rather than substantial cause. The Court emphasized the need to balance judicial discretion in excusing delays while upholding the purpose of limitation laws. Consequently, the stay petition and appeal were dismissed as time-barred due to the appellant's failure to provide justifiable grounds for the delay. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219779