<?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>2018 (5) TMI 1126 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360562</link>
    <description>Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where a lenient view is justified in the interest of substantial justice and no undue advantage is shown from the belated filing. Here, the appellant had already discharged the service tax liability and explained the delay as arising from departmental recovery proceedings. The Tribunal held that the matter should be decided on merits and condoned the 964-day delay, while noting that the appellant could have filed within time and imposing costs of Rs. 20,000 as a condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2018 08:28:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520903" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1126 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360562</link>
      <description>Delay in filing an appeal may be condoned where a lenient view is justified in the interest of substantial justice and no undue advantage is shown from the belated filing. Here, the appellant had already discharged the service tax liability and explained the delay as arising from departmental recovery proceedings. The Tribunal held that the matter should be decided on merits and condoned the 964-day delay, while noting that the appellant could have filed within time and imposing costs of Rs. 20,000 as a condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>