https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465528 The dominant issue was whether a delay exceeding 2000 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. The tribunal held that the applicant's explanation of late knowledge of the impugned order, coupled with absence of departmental proof of service and the fact that over 90% of the disputed duty had been deposited during recovery proceedings, justified permitting access to the statutory right of appeal, notwithstanding noted lack of due diligence and an affidavit not accepted at face value. The delay was condoned and the condonation application was allowed, enabling the appeal to be taken up on merits in due course. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 19:04:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465528 The dominant issue was whether a delay exceeding 2000 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. The tribunal held that the applicant's explanation of late knowledge of the impugned order, coupled with absence of departmental proof of service and the fact that over 90% of the disputed duty had been deposited during recovery proceedings, justified permitting access to the statutory right of appeal, notwithstanding noted lack of due diligence and an affidavit not accepted at face value. The delay was condoned and the condonation application was allowed, enabling the appeal to be taken up on merits in due course. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465528