Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
The dominant issue was whether the statutory appeal was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and within the further condonable period available to the appellate authority. The tribunal held that the appellant admittedly became aware of the order on 16.08.2021, yet filed the appeal well beyond the maximum period that could be condoned, and the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, consistent with the principle that delay beyond the statutorily condonable limit cannot be excused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. - CESTAT
The dominant issue was whether the statutory appeal was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and within the further condonable period available to the appellate authority. The tribunal held that the appellant admittedly became aware of the order on 16.08.2021, yet filed the appeal well beyond the maximum period that could be condoned, and the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, consistent with the principle that delay beyond the statutorily condonable limit cannot be excused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. - CESTAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
