https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275252 The appeal filed by the appellant, a Director of an institute registered for renting services under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994, was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to exceeding the permissible appeal filing period under Section 85(3A) of the Act. Despite explanations for the delay in filing the appeal, the courts upheld the dismissal, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines over the substantive merits of the case. The courts focused on the strict interpretation of the statutory appeal filing period, leading to the dismissal without reviewing the case's merits or considering broader legal contexts or findings of the Apex Court in similar cases. en-us Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 08:21:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275252 The appeal filed by the appellant, a Director of an institute registered for renting services under Section 65 of the Finance Act 1994, was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal due to exceeding the permissible appeal filing period under Section 85(3A) of the Act. Despite explanations for the delay in filing the appeal, the courts upheld the dismissal, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines over the substantive merits of the case. The courts focused on the strict interpretation of the statutory appeal filing period, leading to the dismissal without reviewing the case's merits or considering broader legal contexts or findings of the Apex Court in similar cases. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275252