https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238078 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore rejected the appeal due to a delay of 209 days in filing, beyond the statutory three-month period. Despite the appellant's attempt to justify the delay with a medical certificate, the Commissioner (A) lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the specified period. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises case, emphasized that without statutory provisions for condonation of delay, even the appellate authority cannot grant such relief. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limitations on condoning delays in legal proceedings. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Oct 2013 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238078 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore rejected the appeal due to a delay of 209 days in filing, beyond the statutory three-month period. Despite the appellant's attempt to justify the delay with a medical certificate, the Commissioner (A) lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the specified period. The Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises case, emphasized that without statutory provisions for condonation of delay, even the appellate authority cannot grant such relief. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, underscoring the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limitations on condoning delays in legal proceedings. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238078