Back
G. S. KULKARNI, JITENDRA JAIN
Zulfikar Abdul Rashid Khan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
G. S. Kulkarni, J.
1. These appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenge a common order dated 19 July, 2022, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (for short, “CESTAT”) whereby interim applications filed by the appellant praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeals have been rejected, only on the reasoning as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order which reads thus:-
2. This appeal is admitted on the following questions of law:-
b. Whether the Ld. CESTAT was bound to condone the period undergone before the Revisionary Authority under a bona fide belief and the Appellant had acted
The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Limitation Act must be liberal, emphasizing the importance of justice over rigid procedural adherence, particularly in the context of reliance on am....
The Central Government cannot entertain a revision petition filed beyond the statutory six-month limit, regardless of claimed health reasons, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to limitation p....
An appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is barred by time if not filed within the statutory period specified in the Finance Act, 1994, and requires sufficient cause for delay to be justified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
