Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal as it was filed after more than 30 months from receipt of the Order-In-Original, far exceeding the statutory time limit. Even considering the benefit of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motto Writ Petition, the appeal remained significantly delayed. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked authority to condone delays beyond 30 days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, following the Supreme Court's precedent in Singh Enterprises. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's explanation for delay, finding insufficient cause shown for the extraordinary delay, and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to dismiss the appeal for being time-barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal as it was filed after more than 30 months from receipt of the Order-In-Original, far exceeding the statutory time limit. Even considering the benefit of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motto Writ Petition, the appeal remained significantly delayed. The Commissioner (Appeals) lacked authority to condone delays beyond 30 days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, following the Supreme Court's precedent in Singh Enterprises. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's explanation for delay, finding insufficient cause shown for the extraordinary delay, and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to dismiss the appeal for being time-barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
