TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai: Condonation of delay, appeal authorization, and dismissal of stay application</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (I), NHAVA SHEVA Versus NANDINI IMPEX</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to administrative reasons, validated the appeal's ... Appeal by department - Authorization to file - Stay of order - Refund Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Authorization for filing the appeal.3. Stay of operation of the impugned order regarding cash refund of fine and penalty.Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appeal faced a delay of 12 days due to file transfer between sections, causing the new section staff to take time to be fully functional. The reason for delay was considered reasonable, and the delay was satisfactorily explained. The Court allowed the condonation of delay application, thus validating the delayed appeal submission.Authorization for Filing the Appeal:A preliminary objection was raised regarding the appeal's authorization, pointing out that the initial authorization letter did not specifically name an officer for filing the appeal. However, an addendum was issued by the Review Committee authorizing a specific officer to file the appeal after the limitation period had expired. The Court overruled the objection, stating that the appeal was filed by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs specified in the amended authorization letter, thereby confirming the appeal's validity.Stay of Operation of the Impugned Order:The lower appellate authority allowed cash refund of fine and penalty, stating it did not violate the principle of unjust enrichment. The department accepted this refund as outside the scope of unjust enrichment. However, the memo of appeal filed by the Revenue did not contest this decision. As the respondents had not received the cash refund yet, the Court dismissed the stay application, allowing the refund to proceed.This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed issues related to delay in filing the appeal, authorization for filing the appeal, and the stay of operation of the impugned order regarding cash refund of fine and penalty. The Court allowed the condonation of the appeal's delay, validated the appeal's authorization despite objections, and dismissed the stay application, allowing the cash refund to proceed based on the lower appellate authority's decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
