https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337579 Article 226 writ jurisdiction may be exercised exceptionally despite a statutory appeal being time-barred where the original adjudication failed to consider a substantial defence, causing failure of justice or gross injustice. Although Section 35 of the Central Excise Act permits no condonation beyond its prescribed outer limit and justified rejection of the appeal as delayed, the limitation bar did not preclude writ intervention. The assessee's challenge to inclusion of reimbursed expenses in taxable value, supported by an earlier High Court view, required merits consideration. The appellate orders were set aside and the matter restored for fresh merits adjudication, subject to conditions of deposit and costs. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2017 20:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337579 Article 226 writ jurisdiction may be exercised exceptionally despite a statutory appeal being time-barred where the original adjudication failed to consider a substantial defence, causing failure of justice or gross injustice. Although Section 35 of the Central Excise Act permits no condonation beyond its prescribed outer limit and justified rejection of the appeal as delayed, the limitation bar did not preclude writ intervention. The assessee's challenge to inclusion of reimbursed expenses in taxable value, supported by an earlier High Court view, required merits consideration. The appellate orders were set aside and the matter restored for fresh merits adjudication, subject to conditions of deposit and costs. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 04 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337579