<?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>2010 (12) TMI 115 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202506</link>
    <description>An appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed 226 days beyond the statutory filing period, and the authority lacked power to condone the delay in the circumstances. The Tribunal held that, because the appeal was filed outside the permissible time and could not be saved by condonation, it was not maintainable and had to be dismissed as time-barred. The connected stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 115 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202506</link>
      <description>An appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed 226 days beyond the statutory filing period, and the authority lacked power to condone the delay in the circumstances. The Tribunal held that, because the appeal was filed outside the permissible time and could not be saved by condonation, it was not maintainable and had to be dismissed as time-barred. The connected stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>