<?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>2262-day delay in filing statutory appeal amid COVID limitation exclusions, portal-monitoring expectations rejected; delay condoned.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95475</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant&#039;s inaction as &quot;total negligence,&quot; particularly given the SC&#039;s directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant&#039;s favour. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2262-day delay in filing statutory appeal amid COVID limitation exclusions, portal-monitoring expectations rejected; delay condoned.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95475</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether a 2262-day delay in filing a statutory appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Applying the liberal construction of &quot;sufficient cause&quot; to advance substantial justice, the court held that the tribunal erred in treating the appellant&#039;s inaction as &quot;total negligence,&quot; particularly given the SC&#039;s directions excluding 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation due to COVID-19 and the impracticality of expecting daily portal monitoring. Since refusal would effectively bar scrutiny of a substantial penalty on merits, the delay was condoned and the question of law was answered in the appellant&#039;s favour. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2025 08:56:35 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>