Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

2015 (9) TMI 618 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 63 (All.) - 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 in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly with requirements of Section 153 of Act Even otherwise, delay of two 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 Advocat .....

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 may be decided on merits. The facts of the case are that 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.04.2011 was communicated to him on 25.09.2012 and thereafter the Revision 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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