Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order extending time under the proviso to section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no breach of natural justice: an SCN proposing the extension was served, the appellant's submissions were recorded and considered (paras 15-16), and reasons for extension were expressly stated. Material reasons included the appellant's non-cooperation, failure to respond to summons, and active delay of the investigation, together with the need to verify multiple factors including potential contraventions under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The extension was held to be justified on the facts and in law; appeal dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's order extending time under the proviso to section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found no breach of natural justice: an SCN proposing the extension was served, the appellant's submissions were recorded and considered (paras 15-16), and reasons for extension were expressly stated. Material reasons included the appellant's non-cooperation, failure to respond to summons, and active delay of the investigation, together with the need to verify multiple factors including potential contraventions under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The extension was held to be justified on the facts and in law; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
