Limitation in customs appeals permits exclusion for bona fide refund proceedings, enabling restoration of Bill of Entry assessment challenges on merit...
Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
The case involves timeliness of appeal filed u/s 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994 before Commissioner (Appeals-II) and refund claim. The Appellate Tribunal found that the appellant had submitted appeal papers to Sevottam section, but factual position on receipt was unclear. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not examine merits, solely citing delay. Considering the acknowledgment of receipt, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay and remanding for detailed examination on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals-II).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
