https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312564 The dominant issue was whether an appeal against rejection of a refund claim could be entertained despite an abnormal delay of nearly 20 months. Applying the SC's construction of s.35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in Singh Enterprises, the HC held that condonation depends on a satisfactory and credible explanation; here, the plea of business closure and lack of experience was inconsistent with the admitted fact that the order was promptly handed to a consultant for filing the appeal, negating sufficient cause. Consequently, no ground for interference under Art. 226 was made out, and the petition was dismissed, leaving the time-barred dismissal of the appeal intact. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 17:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312564 The dominant issue was whether an appeal against rejection of a refund claim could be entertained despite an abnormal delay of nearly 20 months. Applying the SC's construction of s.35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in Singh Enterprises, the HC held that condonation depends on a satisfactory and credible explanation; here, the plea of business closure and lack of experience was inconsistent with the admitted fact that the order was promptly handed to a consultant for filing the appeal, negating sufficient cause. Consequently, no ground for interference under Art. 226 was made out, and the petition was dismissed, leaving the time-barred dismissal of the appeal intact. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312564