<?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>2007 (1) TMI 65 -  CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2256</link>
    <description>In service tax appeals, the appellate limitation is governed by Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, not by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred on the wrong limitation provision, so the Tribunal treated any delay as condoned, set aside the dismissal, and remanded the matter for fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (1) TMI 65 -  CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2256</link>
      <description>In service tax appeals, the appellate limitation is governed by Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, not by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal as time-barred on the wrong limitation provision, so the Tribunal treated any delay as condoned, set aside the dismissal, and remanded the matter for fresh decision on merits after hearing the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>