1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Appeal dismissed for 248-day delay; classification under CTH 2710 upheld with benefits affirmed under notification</h1> The SC dismissed the appeal due to lack of sufficient cause to condone the 248-day delay in filing. The CESTAT's decision to set aside the differential ... Condonation of delay of 248 days in filing the present civil appeal - Classification of imported goods - SCRIPTANE PW 28/32H (Petroleum Hydro-treated Middle) - to be classified under CTH 2709 or not - benefit under Serial No. 487 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 - suppression of facts or not - Extended period of limitation - it was held by CESTAT that 'The classification of the goods under CTH 2710 in the impugned order in respect of all the 19 Bills of Entry is not sustainable and accordingly, the demand of differential duty confirmed in the impugned order in respect of all the 19 Bills-of-Entry by re-classifying the impugned goods under CTH 2710 is set aside.' HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to condone the delay - appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, dismissed the civil appeal(s) due to a delay of 248 days in filing. The Court found 'no good reason to condone the delay' and accordingly rejected the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 178341 of 2025). The appeal(s) were dismissed as 'barred by time,' and all pending applications were also dismissed.