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...
The case involved a rejection of an appeal u/s 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of being barred by limitation. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed after 92 days, exceeding the normal period of 60 days. Section 128 allows for a 30-day extension if sufficient cause is shown. Citing SINGH ENTERPRISES V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR, which interprets a similar provision in the Central Excise Act, it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone a delay up to 30 days. As the delay exceeded this period, the rejection of the appeal was deemed appropriate. The decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without any legal infirmity.
The case involved a rejection of an appeal u/s 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of being barred by limitation. The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed after 92 days, exceeding the normal period of 60 days. Section 128 allows for a 30-day extension if sufficient cause is shown. Citing SINGH ENTERPRISES V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR, which interprets a similar provision in the Central Excise Act, it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone a delay up to 30 days. As the delay exceeded this period, the rejection of the appeal was deemed appropriate. The decision was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed without any legal infirmity.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
