1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeals Dismissed as Time-Barred: Court Upholds Commissioner's Decision</h1> The High Court dismissed all appeals, affirming the Commissioner and Tribunal's decisions that the appeals were time-barred. The appeals were filed well ... - Issues involved: Appeal u/s 35(G) of Central Excise Act against order of Tribunal dismissing appeals as barred by time.The appeals were filed on 21.10.2004 against 7 orders passed between 8th February, 2010 to 8th January, 2002. The Commissioner found the appeals filed after two years, whereas required to be filed within 60 days of order communication. The delay was extended to 30 days only, leading to dismissal. Appeals were then filed before the Tribunal, which also faced delays. The Tribunal, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, affirmed the Commissioner's order, stating that the appeals were beyond the permissible limit for condonation of delay. The Tribunal considered the date of receipt of the order as 13th August, 2003, and found the appeals were indeed filed beyond the Commissioner's powers to condone the delay.The Tribunal rejected the submissions that the partner receiving the orders was suffering from dementia and not entitled to receive the communication on behalf of the firm. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, it held that the Commissioner can only condone the delay up to 30 days after the normal 60-day appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized that the judgment cited by the appellants was not applicable to the present case. The findings by both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, deeming the appeals time-barred, were based on a thorough consideration of all relevant materials.The appellant's counsel argued that the person receiving the order was not authorized for communication receipt. However, the Tribunal upheld the date of order receipt as 13th August, 2003, and noted that the appeal was filed by the same person. The findings of both the Commissioner and the Tribunal, declaring the appeals time-barred, were concluded based on factual considerations, with no legal questions arising for further review.Conclusion: All appeals were dismissed by the High Court, affirming the decisions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal regarding the time-barred nature of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
