Qualification of fire extinguishers as aircraft parts - original duty finding under Notification No.50/2017-Sr.545 vacated; remanded for fresh adjudic...
The HC held that appellate interference with a discretionary order condoning delay is limited, and will not be warranted unless the Tribunal's exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds. Here, the Tribunal had considered the explanation for the 763-day delay, the connected nature of the pending appeals between the same parties, and the need to decide the matter on merits in the interest of substantial justice. As no infirmity in that reasoning was established, the order condoning delay was upheld and the challenge failed.
The HC held that appellate interference with a discretionary order condoning delay is limited, and will not be warranted unless the Tribunal's exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or based on untenable grounds. Here, the Tribunal had considered the explanation for the 763-day delay, the connected nature of the pending appeals between the same parties, and the need to decide the matter on merits in the interest of substantial justice. As no infirmity in that reasoning was established, the order condoning delay was upheld and the challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
