Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
HC dismissed the appeal concerning condonation of delay in filing second appeal regarding misdeclaration of imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges. The appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order status. Despite proper service of hearing notice to both appellant and counsel, and counsel's attendance at hearing, appellant neglected to provide alternative address for order service. The Department fulfilled procedural obligations by sending order to available address. Court held appellant's inaction and counsel's failure to communicate constituted negligence. The CESTAT's order upholding dismissal was affirmed, as delay in filing was attributable to appellant's lack of vigilance rather than departmental oversight.
HC dismissed the appeal concerning condonation of delay in filing second appeal regarding misdeclaration of imported Brass Ceramic Cartridges. The appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the Commissioner (Appeals) order status. Despite proper service of hearing notice to both appellant and counsel, and counsel's attendance at hearing, appellant neglected to provide alternative address for order service. The Department fulfilled procedural obligations by sending order to available address. Court held appellant's inaction and counsel's failure to communicate constituted negligence. The CESTAT's order upholding dismissal was affirmed, as delay in filing was attributable to appellant's lack of vigilance rather than departmental oversight.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
