<?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>1998 (1) TMI 520 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181885</link>
    <description>The Court found no satisfactory explanation for a 315-day delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, even after an additional affidavit was submitted, and dismissed the petition on that ground. The operative point is that unexplained delay can defeat admission where the applicant fails to provide a credible justification for late filing. No substantive issue was examined further once the delay was held insufficiently explained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:18:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 520 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181885</link>
      <description>The Court found no satisfactory explanation for a 315-day delay in filing the Special Leave Petition, even after an additional affidavit was submitted, and dismissed the petition on that ground. The operative point is that unexplained delay can defeat admission where the applicant fails to provide a credible justification for late filing. No substantive issue was examined further once the delay was held insufficiently explained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>