TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Delay of 278 Days in Filing Civil Appeal Deemed Inexcusable; Application for Condonation Rejected</h1> The SC dismissed a Civil Appeal due to a 278-day delay in filing, finding the reasons for seeking condonation neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law. ... Condonation of gross delay of 278 days in filing this appeal - Classification of 'Receivers' - to be classified under CTH 85177090 or CTH 85181000? - Classification and eligibility of 'Microphones' for exemption under various notifications - Classification of 'Battery Cover, Back Cover, Camera Lens, and Front Cover' and their eligibility for concessional duty - it was held by CESTAT that 'Battery Cover, Back Cover, Camera Lens, and Front Cover, the department has not been able to prove its charge of classifying the impugned goods under CTH 3920 9999 and hence the classification of the same under CTH 8517 7090 as done by the Appellant holds good.' HELD THAT:- The reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law so as to condone. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. The Supreme Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, addressed an appeal with a 'gross delay of 278 days' in filing. The Court found that the 'reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law.' Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the Civil Appeal. The Court noted that any 'question of law, if any, is kept open.' All pending applications related to the case were also disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
