<?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>Excise appeal delayed 98 days then restored after seven years; &#039;sufficient cause&#039; rejected for negligence, petition dismissed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95561</link>
    <description>Challenge to dismissal of an excise appeal and refusal to restore the condonation application turned on whether &quot;sufficient cause&quot; existed for (i) the initial 98-day delay and (ii) the seven-year delay in seeking restoration. The record showed repeated negligence: belated filing, failure to file an affidavit despite directions, non-appearance, and an inordinate restoration delay. Financial constraint and closure of operations were treated as mere excuses, not a credible explanation, consistent with the principle that delay cannot be condoned absent bona fide diligence. The writ court found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal&#039;s discretionary refusal to condone/restore and dismissed the petition - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:38 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Excise appeal delayed 98 days then restored after seven years; &#039;sufficient cause&#039; rejected for negligence, petition dismissed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95561</link>
      <description>Challenge to dismissal of an excise appeal and refusal to restore the condonation application turned on whether &quot;sufficient cause&quot; existed for (i) the initial 98-day delay and (ii) the seven-year delay in seeking restoration. The record showed repeated negligence: belated filing, failure to file an affidavit despite directions, non-appearance, and an inordinate restoration delay. Financial constraint and closure of operations were treated as mere excuses, not a credible explanation, consistent with the principle that delay cannot be condoned absent bona fide diligence. The writ court found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal&#039;s discretionary refusal to condone/restore and dismissed the petition - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:38 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95561</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>