Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
Recall of an order passed on merits was held impermissible where the appellant had participated through counsel, advanced submissions, and was effectively on notice; the plea of non-impleadment, absence of notice and denial of hearing was rejected because no apparent procedural flaw attributable to the Tribunal was shown. The Tribunal held that recall cannot be used to reopen a merits-based order after hearing. The separate appeal against the original order was also held time-barred under the IBC, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was denied because the recall and writ proceedings could not be used to bypass the statutory appeal period. The delay condonation plea was rejected.
Recall of an order passed on merits was held impermissible where the appellant had participated through counsel, advanced submissions, and was effectively on notice; the plea of non-impleadment, absence of notice and denial of hearing was rejected because no apparent procedural flaw attributable to the Tribunal was shown. The Tribunal held that recall cannot be used to reopen a merits-based order after hearing. The separate appeal against the original order was also held time-barred under the IBC, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was denied because the recall and writ proceedings could not be used to bypass the statutory appeal period. The delay condonation plea was rejected.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
