Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand. The appeal filed on 30.02.2019 was within one month of receipt of the order in original by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. CESTAT held that the matter should be re-heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without discussing the aspect of limitation, as there was nothing on record to show that the appellant deliberately caused the delay.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by way of remand. The appeal filed on 30.02.2019 was within one month of receipt of the order in original by the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) mechanically rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. CESTAT held that the matter should be re-heard by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits without discussing the aspect of limitation, as there was nothing on record to show that the appellant deliberately caused the delay.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
