https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785399 Condonation of delay was allowed on the basis that sufficient cause was shown despite extended limitation; the revenues assertion that the claim related to galvanisation and thus constituted suppression was treated at most as an incorrect claim and not suppression, a conclusion supported by the record as a finding of fact. Because no perversity in the factual finding of no suppression was demonstrated and the matter raised no substantial question of law, the invocation of the extended period was held vulnerable and the appeal was not admitted on merits; accordingly the appeal was dismissed for lack of substantial legal question. en-us Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:10:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785399 Condonation of delay was allowed on the basis that sufficient cause was shown despite extended limitation; the revenues assertion that the claim related to galvanisation and thus constituted suppression was treated at most as an incorrect claim and not suppression, a conclusion supported by the record as a finding of fact. Because no perversity in the factual finding of no suppression was demonstrated and the matter raised no substantial question of law, the invocation of the extended period was held vulnerable and the appeal was not admitted on merits; accordingly the appeal was dismissed for lack of substantial legal question. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785399