<?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>2019 (4) TMI 440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377996</link>
    <description>A strict statutory outer limit governed condonation of delay, and the appellate authority could not enlarge that period. The appellant had knowledge of the demand proceedings years earlier, had participated in the investigation, and failed to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay. On those facts, the delay was not condoned, the appeal was held time-barred, and the challenge to the demand proceedings failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2019 06:58:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377996</link>
      <description>A strict statutory outer limit governed condonation of delay, and the appellate authority could not enlarge that period. The appellant had knowledge of the demand proceedings years earlier, had participated in the investigation, and failed to show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay. On those facts, the delay was not condoned, the appeal was held time-barred, and the challenge to the demand proceedings failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>