<?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>2014 (11) TMI 618 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253301</link>
    <description>In condonation of delay applications, the relevant period to be explained runs from the expiry of limitation, and the explanation must be assessed on bona fide sufficient cause rather than a mechanical insistence on a date-wise account from receipt of the order. The Calcutta High Court found the Tribunal applied the wrong starting point and thereby vitiated its conclusion that no satisfactory cause was shown. The rejection of condonation was set aside, and the delay application was remanded for reconsideration on the correct legal basis, including the appellant&#039;s stated difficulty in acting timely because of the alleged usurpation of office.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 618 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253301</link>
      <description>In condonation of delay applications, the relevant period to be explained runs from the expiry of limitation, and the explanation must be assessed on bona fide sufficient cause rather than a mechanical insistence on a date-wise account from receipt of the order. The Calcutta High Court found the Tribunal applied the wrong starting point and thereby vitiated its conclusion that no satisfactory cause was shown. The rejection of condonation was set aside, and the delay application was remanded for reconsideration on the correct legal basis, including the appellant&#039;s stated difficulty in acting timely because of the alleged usurpation of office.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>