https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269653 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found the denial of benefit under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 unjustified due to a minor discrepancy in interest payment, rectified by the appellant. Additionally, the Tribunal noted defects in the service of the Order-in-Original, including uncertainty regarding the recipient's age and flaws in the order itself. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). en-us Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jan 2016 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269653 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI allowed the appeal, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found the denial of benefit under Section 80(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 unjustified due to a minor discrepancy in interest payment, rectified by the appellant. Additionally, the Tribunal noted defects in the service of the Order-in-Original, including uncertainty regarding the recipient's age and flaws in the order itself. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=269653