<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771486</link>
    <description>The SC examined the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, focusing on an 824-day delay beyond the Covid-19 limitation exclusion period. Despite the pandemic-related limitation orders, the Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s explanation as insufficient and non-credible. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that delay explanations must cover the entire period and demonstrate due diligence, even during extraordinary circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 08:32:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771486</link>
      <description>The SC examined the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, focusing on an 824-day delay beyond the Covid-19 limitation exclusion period. Despite the pandemic-related limitation orders, the Tribunal rejected the appellant&#039;s explanation as insufficient and non-credible. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing that delay explanations must cover the entire period and demonstrate due diligence, even during extraordinary circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>