https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34992 The Tribunal allowed the application for Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's consultant's eye injury. However, the appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond the further period of three months. The appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the stay petition for recovery of service tax was accordingly dismissed. en-us Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34992 The Tribunal allowed the application for Condonation of Delay in filing the appeal due to the appellant's consultant's eye injury. However, the appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond the further period of three months. The appeal was deemed not maintainable, and the stay petition for recovery of service tax was accordingly dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 13 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34992