Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT affirmed dismissal of the appeals for want of limitation, holding that the appeals were lodged beyond the statutory period for filing appeals from Orders-in-Original and beyond the single-month condonation power vested in the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no jurisdictional defect in the Commissioner's limitation ruling and rejected appellants' procedural objections to service/receipt as insufficient to extend time. Prior coordinate bench decisions addressing unauthorized receipt or communication failures were considered but distinguished or held inapplicable. Because the appeals were time-barred and no sufficient cause for extension within the statutory proviso was shown, the appeals were dismissed with no adjudication on merits.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.