<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1240 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372471</link>
    <description>A delayed appeal should be condoned where the appellant gives a plausible explanation for non-receipt of the order, obtains a certified copy later, and there is no material showing mala fides or prejudice to revenue. The Madras HC reiterated that limitation is a rule of public policy, but it should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat adjudication on merits. On the facts noted, the Tribunal ought to have exercised discretion in favour of a merits-based hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2018 07:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1240 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372471</link>
      <description>A delayed appeal should be condoned where the appellant gives a plausible explanation for non-receipt of the order, obtains a certified copy later, and there is no material showing mala fides or prejudice to revenue. The Madras HC reiterated that limitation is a rule of public policy, but it should not be applied so rigidly as to defeat adjudication on merits. On the facts noted, the Tribunal ought to have exercised discretion in favour of a merits-based hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>