Assessment time-barred u/s 153 due to missing competent-authority reference for Singapore exchange of information; assessment disallowed as barred by ...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refus...
CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
The dominant issue was whether an appeal filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be entertained when the delay exceeded the maximum condonable limit (60 days plus a further 30 days). The tribunal held that the right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be enlarged on equitable considerations; filing in an incorrect forum or attributing delay to one's own mistake does not confer a right to bypass a clear limitation bar, nor attract exclusion of time under general limitation principles. Consequently, the time-barred appeal was not entertainable and was dismissed. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether an appeal filed beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 could be entertained when the delay exceeded the maximum condonable limit (60 days plus a further 30 days). The tribunal held that the right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be enlarged on equitable considerations; filing in an incorrect forum or attributing delay to one's own mistake does not confer a right to bypass a clear limitation bar, nor attract exclusion of time under general limitation principles. Consequently, the time-barred appeal was not entertainable and was dismissed. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
