<?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>2026 (8) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797215</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay in customs appeals requires sufficient cause, assessed through bona fides, diligence and a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. A High Court appeal under the Customs Act is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot revisit factual findings unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or reached by ignoring material evidence. Participation through counsel, email service on counsel, attempted dispatch to the recorded address and notice-board display supported the finding that prolonged inaction remained unexplained. Refusal to condone the delay therefore disclosed neither perversity nor a substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:20:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 1089 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797215</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay in customs appeals requires sufficient cause, assessed through bona fides, diligence and a satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. A High Court appeal under the Customs Act is confined to substantial questions of law and cannot revisit factual findings unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or reached by ignoring material evidence. Participation through counsel, email service on counsel, attempted dispatch to the recorded address and notice-board display supported the finding that prolonged inaction remained unexplained. Refusal to condone the delay therefore disclosed neither perversity nor a substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>