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

2016 (7) TMI 496 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2016 (7) TMI 496 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 183 (Guj.) - Delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Determination of period of limitation - Held that:- the petitioner had challenged the order-in-original dated 29.08.2013 which came to be corrected and amended by virtue of corrigendum issued by the competent authority on 29.11.2013. It was only then that the period of limitation would start to run against the petitioner. - The conclusion of the Commissioner that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Tribunal as well as dated 20.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner are set aside. The petitioner's appeal is restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) after condoning delay. - Decided in favor of petitioner. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1876 of 2016 - Dated:- 13-4-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ MR HASIT DILIP DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS NAYNABEN K GADHVI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3 NO .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich, the adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of ₹ 29.60 lacs with interest. The same authority, later on, issued a corrigendum dated 29.11.2013 and provided certain amendments/corrections in the order-in-original. On 17.02.2014, the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Commissioner challenging the said order-in-original dated 29.08.2013, as corrected by corrigendum dated 29.11.2013. Since this appeal was filed beyond a period of 60 days, even counting the limitation fro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eals), however, by his impugned order dated 20.06.2014, rejected such appeal on the ground that the same was filed beyond a period which the Commissioner was authorized to condone. Against such order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CESTAT. There was a delay of 78 days in filing such appeal. The petitioner filed application for condonation of such delay. The Tribunal, however, rejected the petitioner's application of condonation of delay by an order dated 07.07.2015, upon which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst the petitioner. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, counted the starting point of limitation from the original order dated 29.08.2013. It was, therefore, that the Commissioner held a belief that the appeal was beyond limitation by 118 days, a period which he could not condone. We are not unmindful of the statutory provisions which prescribe the period of limitation of 60 days for filing appeal before the Commissioner and a further period of 30 days, upto which, the Commissioner can condone .....

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