<?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>2020 (7) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396894</link>
    <description>Delay in presenting and re-presenting an appeal was examined on the basis of whether sufficient cause existed for condonation. An unexplained lapse of nearly five years in re-presentation, coupled with no satisfactory explanation for the delay, led the Court to find no plausible ground to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. The delay condonation petition was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected as a consequence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2020 08:49:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 563 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396894</link>
      <description>Delay in presenting and re-presenting an appeal was examined on the basis of whether sufficient cause existed for condonation. An unexplained lapse of nearly five years in re-presentation, coupled with no satisfactory explanation for the delay, led the Court to find no plausible ground to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. The delay condonation petition was dismissed, and the appeal was rejected as a consequence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>