https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773788 HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition seeking extension of time to file appeal against Customs confiscation and penalty order under Section 128 of Customs Act. Court held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to extend statutory limitation period absent exceptional circumstances. Petitioner's absence abroad during relevant period was insufficient cause for delay, particularly in penal proceedings involving deliberate gold smuggling. Order was validly served at petitioner's residence on 07.09.2024, establishing constructive knowledge. Court distinguished precedents allowing indulgence in disciplinary cases, emphasizing that penal proceedings require strict adherence to statutory timelines for finality and deterrence. en-us Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jun 2025 08:31:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773788 HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition seeking extension of time to file appeal against Customs confiscation and penalty order under Section 128 of Customs Act. Court held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to extend statutory limitation period absent exceptional circumstances. Petitioner's absence abroad during relevant period was insufficient cause for delay, particularly in penal proceedings involving deliberate gold smuggling. Order was validly served at petitioner's residence on 07.09.2024, establishing constructive knowledge. Court distinguished precedents allowing indulgence in disciplinary cases, emphasizing that penal proceedings require strict adherence to statutory timelines for finality and deterrence. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 10 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773788