Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT dismissed the appellant's condonation of delay application for appeals. Despite being a large corporate entity with established legal infrastructure, the appellant failed to provide sufficiently substantive reasons for delay. The tribunal found the explanations vague and unconvincing, including references to cyclone impact and advocate unavailability. Settled legal principles require detailed day-wise explanations for delay, which were absent in this case. The court emphasized that negligence, gross inaction, and lack of bona fides cannot justify time-barred appeals. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing that condonation of delay is not a mere procedural formality but requires compelling and reasonable justifications for each day's postponement.
CESTAT dismissed the appellant's condonation of delay application for appeals. Despite being a large corporate entity with established legal infrastructure, the appellant failed to provide sufficiently substantive reasons for delay. The tribunal found the explanations vague and unconvincing, including references to cyclone impact and advocate unavailability. Settled legal principles require detailed day-wise explanations for delay, which were absent in this case. The court emphasized that negligence, gross inaction, and lack of bona fides cannot justify time-barred appeals. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing that condonation of delay is not a mere procedural formality but requires compelling and reasonable justifications for each day's postponement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.