Central Government rescinds 2017 notification creating 4.05-hectare SEZ at Ameenpur after developer de-notification request; state no-objection confir...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
10901 to 10920 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 16.12.2021; the statutory window for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) expired after 60 days with an additional discretionary 30 days. The appeal was filed on 05.09.2022, well beyond the prescribed period. Applying authoritative precedent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in this context, the tribunal held there is no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed extension. Consequently, no infirmity was found in the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's appeal as time-barred, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order rejecting the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Order-in-Original was received by the appellant on 16.12.2021; the statutory window for appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) expired after 60 days with an additional discretionary 30 days. The appeal was filed on 05.09.2022, well beyond the prescribed period. Applying authoritative precedent that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in this context, the tribunal held there is no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the prescribed extension. Consequently, no infirmity was found in the impugned order and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
