Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
CESTAT upheld the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal as time-barred. The review order was passed 20 days beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause was shown to the Board to obtain the mandated extension of 30 days under the proviso to Section 129D(3), nor did it file any application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with statutory time limitations cannot be mechanically condoned without adherence to legal mandates, particularly when no justifiable reasons were presented.
CESTAT upheld the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)'s decision dismissing the Revenue's appeal as time-barred. The review order was passed 20 days beyond the 90-day limitation period prescribed under Section 129D(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that sufficient cause was shown to the Board to obtain the mandated extension of 30 days under the proviso to Section 129D(3), nor did it file any application for condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ruled that non-compliance with statutory time limitations cannot be mechanically condoned without adherence to legal mandates, particularly when no justifiable reasons were presented.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
