https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256048 Appeals against rejection of refund claims were held to be barred by limitation because they were filed beyond the statutory appeal period, and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown. Service of the Orders-in-Original on the company's authorised representative was treated as valid receipt for computing limitation, since he was routinely interacting with the department on the company's behalf. The incorrect date of receipt stated in the appeals was regarded as misrepresentation and could not extend limitation. The dismissal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore upheld. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:29:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256048 Appeals against rejection of refund claims were held to be barred by limitation because they were filed beyond the statutory appeal period, and no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was shown. Service of the Orders-in-Original on the company's authorised representative was treated as valid receipt for computing limitation, since he was routinely interacting with the department on the company's behalf. The incorrect date of receipt stated in the appeals was regarded as misrepresentation and could not extend limitation. The dismissal of the appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256048