Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
