Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where...
Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan approval.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Condonation of an inordinate refiling delay was refused where the appellant failed to show sufficient cause for curing repeated defects in an appeal against approval of a resolution plan. The NCLAT held that liberal consideration of refiling delay depends on the facts of each case, but the appellant had acted without promptness after repeated defect notifications, and the appeal was filed after approval and implementation of the resolution plan. General explanations of logistical difficulty, bulky papers and holidays were found insufficient, and non-deposit of the requisite fee indicated lack of diligence. The application for condonation was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was consequently rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.