<?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>2024 (5) TMI 1668 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466428</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was examined on the basis of inordinate delay and negligence in prosecuting the claim. The Tribunal held the appellant failed to explain nearly 18 months&#039; delay, did not produce documentary proof that SVLDRS rejection was communicated late, and could have checked the revenue website where the rejection appeared shortly after filing. Applying judicial discretion, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and declined to entertain the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Feb 2026 17:12:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1668 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466428</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme was examined on the basis of inordinate delay and negligence in prosecuting the claim. The Tribunal held the appellant failed to explain nearly 18 months&#039; delay, did not produce documentary proof that SVLDRS rejection was communicated late, and could have checked the revenue website where the rejection appeared shortly after filing. Applying judicial discretion, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and declined to entertain the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>