https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337947 The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner due to being time-barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, as they were filed after 140 days from the receipt of the Order-in-Original. Despite the appellant's argument attributing the delay to the consultant's fault, the presiding member upheld the dismissal, citing limited scope for condoning delays beyond the statutory period. Relying on relevant legal provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, the appeals were rejected based on the prescribed time limit for filing appeals in tax matters. en-us Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2017 07:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337947 The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner due to being time-barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, as they were filed after 140 days from the receipt of the Order-in-Original. Despite the appellant's argument attributing the delay to the consultant's fault, the presiding member upheld the dismissal, citing limited scope for condoning delays beyond the statutory period. Relying on relevant legal provisions and the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, the appeals were rejected based on the prescribed time limit for filing appeals in tax matters. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337947