https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252031 The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the incorrect mention of the limitation period in the adjudication order, referencing a Tribunal decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the authority to condone delays beyond the specified period. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that errors in the adjudication order do not override statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Oct 2014 20:46:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252031 The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the incorrect mention of the limitation period in the adjudication order, referencing a Tribunal decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the authority to condone delays beyond the specified period. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that errors in the adjudication order do not override statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252031