https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445367 The appeal was initially dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the prescribed period under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the order was received within the stipulated time, challenging the method of service, which was dispatched by speed post rather than registered post. The court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly applied the unamended section 37C of the Central Excise Act, leading to a misinterpretation. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to set aside the dismissal and decide the appeal on its merits, allowing the appellant's claim. en-us Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2023 08:51:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445367 The appeal was initially dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for being filed beyond the prescribed period under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the order was received within the stipulated time, challenging the method of service, which was dispatched by speed post rather than registered post. The court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) incorrectly applied the unamended section 37C of the Central Excise Act, leading to a misinterpretation. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to set aside the dismissal and decide the appeal on its merits, allowing the appellant's claim. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 19 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445367