<?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>2021 (9) TMI 601 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412256</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied the appellant&#039;s application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal due to the appellant&#039;s negligence and deliberate inaction despite being aware of the impugned order. The appellant&#039;s explanations for the delay, including lack of knowledge of the order and previous show cause notices, were deemed insufficient. The Department&#039;s contention of significant delay and mala fide intentions on the appellant&#039;s part prevailed, leading to the rejection of the condonation application. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a plausible explanation for the delay, which the appellant failed to provide convincingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2021 08:48:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 601 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412256</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied the appellant&#039;s application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal due to the appellant&#039;s negligence and deliberate inaction despite being aware of the impugned order. The appellant&#039;s explanations for the delay, including lack of knowledge of the order and previous show cause notices, were deemed insufficient. The Department&#039;s contention of significant delay and mala fide intentions on the appellant&#039;s part prevailed, leading to the rejection of the condonation application. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a plausible explanation for the delay, which the appellant failed to provide convincingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>