<?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>2015 (3) TMI 1225 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187726</link>
    <description>The appeal for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax/CENVAT Credit and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was dismissed due to a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal and the absence of the authorized signatory&#039;s signature. The Commissioner(Appeals) held that the appeal was filed late beyond the condonable limit of three months under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing the precedent set by the Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commr. Of Central Excise. The dismissal was upheld based on legal limitations regarding the condonable period for filing appeals, despite arguments from the Appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2016 10:28:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1225 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187726</link>
      <description>The appeal for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax/CENVAT Credit and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was dismissed due to a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal and the absence of the authorized signatory&#039;s signature. The Commissioner(Appeals) held that the appeal was filed late beyond the condonable limit of three months under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, citing the precedent set by the Hon&#039;ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commr. Of Central Excise. The dismissal was upheld based on legal limitations regarding the condonable period for filing appeals, despite arguments from the Appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187726</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>