<?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 (4) TMI 1910 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471247</link>
    <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including mandatory statutory pre-deposit, requires sufficient cause supported by a bona fide, diligent and documented explanation proportionate to the delay. Service of Registry communications and repeated non-appearance weigh against restoration where the appellant fails to establish compliance efforts or justified inability to act. An unexplained delay of nearly five years, coupled with unsupported grounds for non-compliance with pre-deposit, does not satisfy the sufficient-cause standard. Rejection of restoration raises no substantial question of law or perversity on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 21:12:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919240" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1910 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471247</link>
      <description>Restoration of an appeal dismissed for failure to remove defects, including mandatory statutory pre-deposit, requires sufficient cause supported by a bona fide, diligent and documented explanation proportionate to the delay. Service of Registry communications and repeated non-appearance weigh against restoration where the appellant fails to establish compliance efforts or justified inability to act. An unexplained delay of nearly five years, coupled with unsupported grounds for non-compliance with pre-deposit, does not satisfy the sufficient-cause standard. Rejection of restoration raises no substantial question of law or perversity on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>