Jurisdictional facts in certificate-of-origin discrepancies can support customs show-cause proceedings, leaving factual explanations for departmental ...
Market value for captive electricity consumption follows industrial consumer tariffs, supporting profit computation for the power generation deduction...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
