Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (5) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ect Miscellaneous Order No. 50133-50134/ 2025 dated 10th February, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned order') passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'the CESTAT'). 3. Vide the impugned order, the CESTAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant i.e., Defect Appeal Diary No. 50237 of 2024 on the ground of delay. 4. The brief background of this case is that an investigation was conducted against the Appellant Company and its Directors on the grounds of allegations that certain goods were exported by them which were highly over-valued, only with the intention to earn duty drawbacks. 5. Pursuant to the investigation, a Show Cause Notice was issued upon the Appellant Company on 14th August, 2013....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th January, 2024. Thus, there was a substantial delay in the filing of the appeal of more than 1610 days. The said timeline is captured in brief hereinbelow: Date of Order in Appeal 28.05.2019 Date on which the Appellant received the Order in Appeal 03.06.2019 Date on which limitation period of three months for filing appeal under Section 129 of Customs Act, 1962 expired 02.09.2019 Appeal filed on 29.01.2024 Total Days of Delay 1610 days 10. On 10th February, 2025, CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant holding that the Appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 1617 days. 11. The case of the Appellant is that the medical condition of the Appellant's Director, coupled with the....