Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Super House Ltd. Versus Union Of India And 2 Others

2015 (9) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Validity of service of Notice – Notices send via speed post – Condonation of Delay – Due to non-existence of All Industry Rate for riding breeches with artificial leather cloths, petitioner had made six applications for fixation of brand rate under Rule 6(1)(a) of Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995 – Application was rejected on ground of two days delay – Revision was filed however it was informed that it had been filed beyond time, when calculated from order da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o days cannot be said to be fatal – Impugned orders set aside – Delay condoned – Respondent-authorities directed to hear and decide appeal of petitioner on merits – Petition disposed of. - Writ Tax No. - 833 of 2013 - Dated:- 30-4-2015 - Bharati Sapru, J. For the Petitioner : Kartikeya Saran,S.D. Singh For the Respondent : C.S.C. Central Excise,A.S.G.I.,B.K.S. Raghuvansi Judgment Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the petitioner is an export House having no domestic sale and imports artificial leather cloth (anti scratch fabric) under advance license and stitches it on to the trousers. Due to non-existence of All Industry Rate for riding breeches with artificial leather cloths, the petitioner had made six applications for fixation of brand rate under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Customs and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules 1995. The application was rejected on 22.11.2010. When the petitioner f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on was filed within the prescribed period of three months i.e. on 24.12.2012. On 28.01.2013 the Section Officer of the Department informed the petitioner that the revision had been filed beyond time and it was time barred and no application or prayer has been made for condonation of the delay. The petitioner made a reply that it had no knowledge of the order dated 27.04.2011. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents an averment has been made in paragraph 9 that notice of the order dated .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version