Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
