<?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>1980 (8) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41204</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal may be treated as excusable where the assessee acted promptly on wrong advice from the Assistant Collector and there was no inaction or negligence on its part. The period spent pursuing the remedy indicated by the departmental authority was treated as capable of counting for limitation purposes, with the result that the appeal was considered within time. On that basis, the appeal was held maintainable and fit to be decided on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 May 2010 12:16:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79735" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (8) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41204</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal may be treated as excusable where the assessee acted promptly on wrong advice from the Assistant Collector and there was no inaction or negligence on its part. The period spent pursuing the remedy indicated by the departmental authority was treated as capable of counting for limitation purposes, with the result that the appeal was considered within time. On that basis, the appeal was held maintainable and fit to be decided on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>