Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
