https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385041 The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, with the Commissioner (Appeals) initially rejecting it due to a perceived delay in filing. However, upon review, it was determined that the appeal fell within the extended period of 90 days, including both the normal 60-day period and the condonable 30-day period. Consequently, the judgment set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for a merit-based decision without consideration of the delay issue. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings and separating procedural constraints from the substantive merits of an appeal. en-us Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385041 The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred, with the Commissioner (Appeals) initially rejecting it due to a perceived delay in filing. However, upon review, it was determined that the appeal fell within the extended period of 90 days, including both the normal 60-day period and the condonable 30-day period. Consequently, the judgment set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for a merit-based decision without consideration of the delay issue. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings and separating procedural constraints from the substantive merits of an appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385041