Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 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" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and condoning a 36-day delay. The Tribunal held the limitation for filing an appeal under s.128 must be computed from communication of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, not merely from the date of provisional assessment of the bill of entry. As the Appellant had requested a speaking order and received no response, the appeal was within time. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a decision conforming to s.128A(4), and to make further enquiries, if necessary under s.128A(3), and dispose of the appeal within four months.
CESTAT allowed the appeal by remand, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and condoning a 36-day delay. The Tribunal held the limitation for filing an appeal under s.128 must be computed from communication of a speaking order by the Assessing Officer, not merely from the date of provisional assessment of the bill of entry. As the Appellant had requested a speaking order and received no response, the appeal was within time. The matter is remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a decision conforming to s.128A(4), and to make further enquiries, if necessary under s.128A(3), and dispose of the appeal within four months.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
