Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
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 4817 
Join Channel 
