<?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>2013 (5) TMI 429 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233844</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the condonation application for a delay of 13 months and 25 days in filing the appeal, citing the employee&#039;s negligence as insufficient cause. The applicant&#039;s failure to take disciplinary action against the negligent clerk and lack of evidence contributed to the decision. The ruling stressed the necessity of demonstrating a valid reason for delay and timely compliance with legal procedures, indicating that negligence alone does not justify condonation beyond statutory limitations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 10:02:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 429 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233844</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the condonation application for a delay of 13 months and 25 days in filing the appeal, citing the employee&#039;s negligence as insufficient cause. The applicant&#039;s failure to take disciplinary action against the negligent clerk and lack of evidence contributed to the decision. The ruling stressed the necessity of demonstrating a valid reason for delay and timely compliance with legal procedures, indicating that negligence alone does not justify condonation beyond statutory limitations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233844</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>