https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194922 Unexplained delay of 469 days in filing the appeal led the SC to refuse condonation, as no satisfactory explanation was offered and the delay was substantial. On merits, the appeal was also found to be covered by the Court's earlier decision in M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd., so the controversy was governed by binding precedent and could not succeed independently. The appeal was therefore dismissed both for non-condonation of delay and because the issue stood concluded by the earlier ratio. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Oct 2017 06:46:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194922 Unexplained delay of 469 days in filing the appeal led the SC to refuse condonation, as no satisfactory explanation was offered and the delay was substantial. On merits, the appeal was also found to be covered by the Court's earlier decision in M/s. Sports & Leisure Apparel Ltd., so the controversy was governed by binding precedent and could not succeed independently. The appeal was therefore dismissed both for non-condonation of delay and because the issue stood concluded by the earlier ratio. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194922