Toy balloon tariff classification: functional heading prevails over residual rubber and festive article headings, supporting penalties for deliberate ...
Customs valuation using comparable contemporaneous imports can displace declared value, while missing speaking orders require pursuit before competent...
Foreign customs declarations and importer admissions established undervaluation, supporting sequential value redetermination, differential duty, and m...
Customs seizure safeguards prevent detention-based limitation avoidance and invalidate provisional release conditions for imported vehicles under an i...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Determination of the limitation period for filing an appeal u/s 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the scope of an "Aggrieved Person," and the principle of Estoppel by Conduct. The key points are: The appellant cannot claim the benefit of the extended limitation period due to COVID-19, as the mandatory 30-day period for applying for a certified copy of the impugned order had expired much before the extended period commenced on 15.03.2020. The appellant's failure to comply with the statutory requirement of procuring a certified copy within the prescribed time, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, creates a legal bar u/s 114 of the Evidence Act. The appellant's inaction to apply for a certified copy, despite having knowledge, would constitute an "Estoppel by Conduct." Consequently, the application for condonation of delay lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
