https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422218 The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation as it was within two months from the rejection of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, not from the date of the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the original order date for calculating the appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, should be the date of the ROM decision. The appeal was deemed timely, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits. en-us Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2022 08:42:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422218 The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation as it was within two months from the rejection of the rectification of mistake (ROM) application, not from the date of the original order. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in considering the original order date for calculating the appeal period. The Tribunal emphasized that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, should be the date of the ROM decision. The appeal was deemed timely, and the matter was remanded for adjudication on merits. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422218