Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The Delhi High Court, in a second appeal against the CESTAT order dated 30th June 2023, addressed the refusal to condone a 304-day delay in filing an appeal against an adjudicating authority's order dated 22nd February 2022. The appellant's appeal was filed on 31st March 2023, well beyond the prescribed three-month period under Section 129A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Although Section 129A(5) allows condonation of delay upon sufficient cause, CESTAT had dismissed the appeal as non-condonable. The adjudicating authority's order involved denial of classification benefits, imposition of additional customs duty of Rs. 1.59 crores under Section 28(1), interest under Section 28AA, and a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs under Section 117, while rejecting confiscation and penalty under other sections. Recognizing the substantial demand and the reasons for delay, the High Court held that the appellant "deserves to be heard on merits" and accordingly "condone[d] the delay" subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1 lakh to the Department. Upon payment within four weeks, the appeal will be listed before CESTAT for consideration on merits. The Court explicitly stated it had not examined the merits of the appeal in this order.