https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74859 A curable deficiency in court-fee stamps should have been allowed to be rectified, and the omission to give such an opportunity was treated as a lapse. However, the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the appellate authority had no power at the relevant time to condone delay beyond that period. The limitation bar was therefore decisive, and the dismissal of the appeal was maintained notwithstanding the court-fee defect. en-us Wed, 06 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:40:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74859 A curable deficiency in court-fee stamps should have been allowed to be rectified, and the omission to give such an opportunity was treated as a lapse. However, the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the appellate authority had no power at the relevant time to condone delay beyond that period. The limitation bar was therefore decisive, and the dismissal of the appeal was maintained notwithstanding the court-fee defect. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74859