<?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>2025 (11) TMI 2076 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472155</link>
    <description>Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 creates a rebuttable presumption that a postal communication was served when properly dispatched. Where an order-in-appeal was dispatched shortly after issue, an assertion of non-receipt requires credible supporting material to displace that presumption. Failure to pursue the appellate process or make enquiries about the order for nearly two years undermines an explanation for delayed filing. The 820-day delay was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so condonation was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 22:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=927275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 2076 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472155</link>
      <description>Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 creates a rebuttable presumption that a postal communication was served when properly dispatched. Where an order-in-appeal was dispatched shortly after issue, an assertion of non-receipt requires credible supporting material to displace that presumption. Failure to pursue the appellate process or make enquiries about the order for nearly two years undermines an explanation for delayed filing. The 820-day delay was treated as inordinate and unexplained, so condonation was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>