<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2009 (1) TMI 762 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133035</link>
    <description>An appeal under Section 84 of the Finance Act was treated as time-barred because it was filed after the initial three-month limitation period and also beyond the further three months that the Commissioner (Appeals) could condone. The appellate authority had no power to extend delay beyond that statutory limit, so dismissal for want of limitation was consistent with the governing framework. The appeal was therefore upheld as barred by time, and no relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:08:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=165938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 762 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133035</link>
      <description>An appeal under Section 84 of the Finance Act was treated as time-barred because it was filed after the initial three-month limitation period and also beyond the further three months that the Commissioner (Appeals) could condone. The appellate authority had no power to extend delay beyond that statutory limit, so dismissal for want of limitation was consistent with the governing framework. The appeal was therefore upheld as barred by time, and no relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=133035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>