<?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>2017 (12) TMI 1383 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353114</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal due to delay in filing beyond the statutory 60-day period, emphasizing that the Commissioner (A) can only condone delays up to 30 days. The decision underscores the significance of complying with prescribed time limits for filing appeals and the restricted authority of the appellate body to condone delays.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501460" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1383 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353114</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal due to delay in filing beyond the statutory 60-day period, emphasizing that the Commissioner (A) can only condone delays up to 30 days. The decision underscores the significance of complying with prescribed time limits for filing appeals and the restricted authority of the appellate body to condone delays.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>