Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
521 to 540 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Limitation for an appeal under section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of pronouncement of the impugned order, not from the date of upload or the appellant's date of knowledge. The tribunal applied the statutory time-bound appellate scheme and held that the order pronounced on 08.12.2025 triggered limitation from that date. It also held that an alleged technical glitch in the e-filing portal could not justify condonation once the appeal was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of thirty days plus fifteen days, because the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a delayed appeal on equitable or technical grounds. The condonation application and appeal were rejected as time-barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
