https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765205 The Madras HC allowed an appeal concerning CESTAT's power to condone delay in filing customs appeals. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for delay beyond 30 days, which was proper as the Commissioner lacks power to condone such delay. However, CESTAT erred in dismissing the second appeal despite it being filed within statutory time limits. The court found compelling reasons for delay condonation, noting the appellant had made a representation in August 2007 with no response, likely causing delay while awaiting orders. CESTAT failed to consider these factors and should have examined the matter on merits. The substantial questions of law regarding limitation were answered favorably for the appellant. en-us Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jan 2025 08:24:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765205 The Madras HC allowed an appeal concerning CESTAT's power to condone delay in filing customs appeals. The appellant's first appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for delay beyond 30 days, which was proper as the Commissioner lacks power to condone such delay. However, CESTAT erred in dismissing the second appeal despite it being filed within statutory time limits. The court found compelling reasons for delay condonation, noting the appellant had made a representation in August 2007 with no response, likely causing delay while awaiting orders. CESTAT failed to consider these factors and should have examined the matter on merits. The substantial questions of law regarding limitation were answered favorably for the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 02 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765205