https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111110 Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, settlement could not be presumed without a settlement certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1998, and the scheme did not confer power to condone delay in payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not assume the role of the designated authority or treat the default as merely technical in the absence of statutory authority. On that basis, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111110 Under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, settlement could not be presumed without a settlement certificate under Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1998, and the scheme did not confer power to condone delay in payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) could not assume the role of the designated authority or treat the default as merely technical in the absence of statutory authority. On that basis, the appellate order was held unsustainable and the Revenue's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111110