https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201484 Under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989, the appellate structure was confined to adjudication by the customs authority, an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), and revision to the Central Government; no further appeal lay to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction without an express statutory provision. A mistaken covering letter, consent, or estoppel could not confer jurisdiction or defeat the statutory consequence of limitation. However, because the assessee had been misled by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Court granted limited equitable protection by allowing revision to be filed within the time fixed and without dismissal on limitation. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201484 Under the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989, the appellate structure was confined to adjudication by the customs authority, an appeal to the Collector (Appeals), and revision to the Central Government; no further appeal lay to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal could not assume jurisdiction without an express statutory provision. A mistaken covering letter, consent, or estoppel could not confer jurisdiction or defeat the statutory consequence of limitation. However, because the assessee had been misled by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Court granted limited equitable protection by allowing revision to be filed within the time fixed and without dismissal on limitation. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201484