Customs - UNITED TELECOMS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE = 2008
Date of Decision: July 14, 2006 - CESTAT, BANGALOREAppellant is seeking condonation of delay of 299 days in filing the appeal - due to various other commercial reasons, appellant didn’t file appeal but decide to pay the duty liability – changed view to file an appeal after a lapse of 299 days cannot be a reason to condone the delay – appellant has filed the appeal only to take advantage of subsequent judgments - no sufficient cause to condone - application suffers from lapse and negligence and hence the application is rejected
Customs - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR Versus SHARMAN WOOLLEN MILLS = 2008
Date of Decision: October 11, 2006 - CESTAT, NEW DELHIIn this application, the Revenue has prayed to stay the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and to pass such order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of natural justice Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – held that Rule 41 relates to the orders of the Tribunal and not to those of authorities below - no prima facie case has been made out in Revenue’s favour - application filed by the Revenue merits no consideration
IF YOU NEED MORE CUSTOME CASE LAWS MAIL TO ME AT casatbirgill@gmail.com
SATBIR SINGH
PRESIDENT
JAB WE MET CA
REDEFINING PROFESSIONALISM.......
No comments:
Post a Comment