Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed.
The HC allowed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The petitioner-assessee filed an appeal on 01.07.2024 against an order communicated on 01.04.2024. The Appellate Authority erroneously dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding the two-month limitation period expired on 31.05.2024 and extended period on 30.06.2024. The HC held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the communication date 01.04.2024 must be excluded from limitation calculation, making the appeal timely filed within the extended three-month period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act. Despite availability of statutory appeal remedy to CESTAT under Section 86, the HC entertained the writ petition as it involved a pure question of law without disputed facts. The impugned dismissal order was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.