<?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>2023 (3) TMI 891 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435505</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that neither it nor the first appellate authority could condone delays beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, and the Tribunal upheld the dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2023 08:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=708296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 891 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435505</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that neither it nor the first appellate authority could condone delays beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, and the Tribunal upheld the dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>