Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Service Tax- V, ... on 26 September, 2018
cites
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Finance Act, 1999
The Customs Act, 1962
M.P. Steel Corporation vs Commnr. Of Central Excise on 23 April, 2015
7. The impugned order dated 15th November 2017 of
5
/ 8
September 26, 2018
16-CEXA-16-18.doc
the Tribunal held that the principles contained in Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963 i.e. exclusion of time spent bonafide in
prosecuting a proceeding before a forum which does not have
jurisdiction is inapplicable to statutory appeals. This has now
been rejected by the Supreme Court in M.P. Steel Corporation
Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise1. It has held that the
principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable
even when in respect of statutory Appeals filed before the
Tribunal from the orders passed by the Collector of Customs
(Appeals) under the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, the period of
time spent in prosecuting the Petition against the order dated
13th January 2016 of the Commissioner of Service Tax has to be
excluded while computing the period of limitation in filing an
Appeal before the Tribunal. Undisputedly, the period between
4th May 2016 to 30th March 2017 was spent bonafide before
this Court in prosecution of Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2016.
Section 83 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
preparing the Appeal to file it
to the Tribunal is reasonable. A party who prosecutes a
Writ Petition bonafide expecting to succeed cannot be expected
to keep preparing for an alternate remedy even before
7
/ 8
September 26, 2018
16-CEXA-16-18.doc
his Petition is rejected. Further, the Apex Court has repeatedly
held that a liberal approach should be adopted while deciding
an application for condonation of delay. (see Collector Vs. Mst
Katiji 28 ELT 185). Therefore, in the present facts, we find that
the Appellant has sufficiently explained the delay.
M/S Tata Tea Co. Ltd. (Now As Tata Global ... vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2018
(ii) The Appellant was of the view that the order
dated 13th January 2016 (received on 2nd
March 2016) is without jurisdiction and would
warrant interference of this Court in its extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, filed a Writ Petition
being Writ Petition No. 1724 of 2016 (Team
Global Logistics (P) Limited Vs. UoI) on 4th May
2016;
1