<?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>1997 (9) TMI 635 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279283</link>
    <description>An application for condonation of delay was rejected because the delay of 476 days was not satisfactorily explained. As the delay was not condoned, the connected Civil Appeals were dismissed as well. The operative point is that unexplained inordinate delay can defeat appellate proceedings at the threshold when the applicant fails to establish sufficient cause for the full period of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:43:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=562379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 635 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279283</link>
      <description>An application for condonation of delay was rejected because the delay of 476 days was not satisfactorily explained. As the delay was not condoned, the connected Civil Appeals were dismissed as well. The operative point is that unexplained inordinate delay can defeat appellate proceedings at the threshold when the applicant fails to establish sufficient cause for the full period of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>