<?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>2002 (5) TMI 2 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82</link>
    <description>An appeal against a service tax order to the Commissioner (Appeals) was governed by Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allowed filing within three months and, in appropriate cases, condonation of a further three months. The sixty-day limitation in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to such an appeal. As the appeal had been filed within the period prescribed by Section 85, dismissal on the ground of limitation was incorrect and the assessee was entitled to relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 2 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82</link>
      <description>An appeal against a service tax order to the Commissioner (Appeals) was governed by Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allowed filing within three months and, in appropriate cases, condonation of a further three months. The sixty-day limitation in Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply to such an appeal. As the appeal had been filed within the period prescribed by Section 85, dismissal on the ground of limitation was incorrect and the assessee was entitled to relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>