https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254519 Condonation of delay requires a bona fide and satisfactorily explained cause; an inordinate delay of 1409 days and 199 days in filing appeals against Tribunal orders was refused where the petitioner's explanation was confused, unsupported by reliable material, and reflected repeated resort to remedies to delay recovery. The Madras HC held that pursuing proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal, and applications under Rule 41 did not justify exclusion of the delay on the facts, as the conduct showed no bona fides and a self-serving attempt to frustrate adjudication. Both petitions were rejected and the challenge failed at the threshold. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254519 Condonation of delay requires a bona fide and satisfactorily explained cause; an inordinate delay of 1409 days and 199 days in filing appeals against Tribunal orders was refused where the petitioner's explanation was confused, unsupported by reliable material, and reflected repeated resort to remedies to delay recovery. The Madras HC held that pursuing proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal, and applications under Rule 41 did not justify exclusion of the delay on the facts, as the conduct showed no bona fides and a self-serving attempt to frustrate adjudication. Both petitions were rejected and the challenge failed at the threshold. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254519