https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72093 Departmental appeals were held to be within limitation because the impugned order was proved to have been communicated on 6 December 1983 and the appeals were filed on 5 March 1984. Absence of verification at filing did not justify rejection, as verification under Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a mandatory ground for dismissal under section 129-A(6) of the Customs Act. On valuation, section 14(1)(b) could be used only if value could not be determined under section 14(1)(a); newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost were insufficient where comparable imports existed and the invoice price had no proper basis for rejection. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 May 2011 17:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72093 Departmental appeals were held to be within limitation because the impugned order was proved to have been communicated on 6 December 1983 and the appeals were filed on 5 March 1984. Absence of verification at filing did not justify rejection, as verification under Rule 6A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a mandatory ground for dismissal under section 129-A(6) of the Customs Act. On valuation, section 14(1)(b) could be used only if value could not be determined under section 14(1)(a); newspaper quotations and deduced landed cost were insufficient where comparable imports existed and the invoice price had no proper basis for rejection. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72093