https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465527 Whether a belated restoration/recall of an earlier dismissal for failure to explain delay can be entertained was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that restoration sought after an inordinate lapse is not maintainable absent a satisfactory explanation, consistent with Tribunal and HC precedent. The only ground advanced-closure of business-was rejected because the responsible managerial person remained available and no reason was shown for non-compliance with the prior direction to file an affidavit explaining the original filing delay, nor for the further seven-year inaction after the dismissal. The restoration/recall application was dismissed, leaving the earlier dismissal of the appeal undisturbed. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 19:04:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465527 Whether a belated restoration/recall of an earlier dismissal for failure to explain delay can be entertained was the dominant issue. The Tribunal held that restoration sought after an inordinate lapse is not maintainable absent a satisfactory explanation, consistent with Tribunal and HC precedent. The only ground advanced-closure of business-was rejected because the responsible managerial person remained available and no reason was shown for non-compliance with the prior direction to file an affidavit explaining the original filing delay, nor for the further seven-year inaction after the dismissal. The restoration/recall application was dismissed, leaving the earlier dismissal of the appeal undisturbed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465527