<?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 (8) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384129</link>
    <description>In a condonation application, the applicant must explain the entire period of delay, including when non-compliance was first discovered and the delay thereafter. Where an appeal had earlier been restored subject to removal of office objections within a fixed time, failure to comply and failure to disclose the date of knowledge of that default meant no sufficient cause was shown. The delay was not condoned and the motion failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:02:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384129</link>
      <description>In a condonation application, the applicant must explain the entire period of delay, including when non-compliance was first discovered and the delay thereafter. Where an appeal had earlier been restored subject to removal of office objections within a fixed time, failure to comply and failure to disclose the date of knowledge of that default meant no sufficient cause was shown. The delay was not condoned and the motion failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>