Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4789
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95770 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld rejection of rectification application filed under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Following precedent set in Hongo India Pvt Ltd case, court affirmed that statutory time limits for rectification applications cannot be extended beyond six months prescribed period. Post-2002 amendment reduced time limit from four years to six months for rectification of apparent mistakes in Tribunal orders. Tribunal lacks discretionary power to condone delays beyond statutory period, as Section 5 of Limitation Act remains excluded. Absence of explicit provision for condonation of delay in Section 35C(2) means strict adherence to six-month limitation. Appeal dismissed as Tribunal acted within jurisdictional bounds in rejecting time-barred application.
HC upheld rejection of rectification application filed under Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Following precedent set in Hongo India Pvt Ltd case, court affirmed that statutory time limits for rectification applications cannot be extended beyond six months prescribed period. Post-2002 amendment reduced time limit from four years to six months for rectification of apparent mistakes in Tribunal orders. Tribunal lacks discretionary power to condone delays beyond statutory period, as Section 5 of Limitation Act remains excluded. Absence of explicit provision for condonation of delay in Section 35C(2) means strict adherence to six-month limitation. Appeal dismissed as Tribunal acted within jurisdictional bounds in rejecting time-barred application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4789
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
