The Supreme Court In Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (2009 (238) Elt 705 (Sc)), This Court Had Held In
High Court
04 Jan 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Supreme Court In Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (2009 (238) Elt 705 (Sc)), This Court Had Held In
Date of order
04 Jan 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Supreme Court In Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd v. Commissioner Of Central Excise (2009 (238) Elt 705 (Sc)), This Court Had Held In, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2851 OF 2009ININCOME TAX APPEAL NO.4266 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Income Tax-7..Appellant.Vs.Swan Mills Ltd...Respondent.
..Respondent.
....
Ms Suchitra Kamble for the Appellant.None for the Respondent.
...
CORAM:DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
4th January, 2010.
P.C.:
The Notice of Motion seeks condonation of delay in filing
the appeal. On 9th July, 2009 the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground that though the appeal was barred by limitation, no Motion for condonation has been taken out. But apart from this, the Division Bench observed that in view of the decision of
the Supreme Court in Chaudharana Steels (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2009 (238) ELT 705 (SC)), this Court had held in
CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Notice of Motion No.787 of 2009 in I.T.A. (Lodg.) N.3592 of 2008 decided on 8th July, 2009) that this Court has no power to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In view of the fact that the appeal has already been dismissed on 9th July, 2009 both on the ground that at that stage no Motion had been taken out and that this Court has no power to condone the delay under Section 260A, this Motion shall have to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.