https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450571 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by way of remand after finding that the Principal Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal solely on limitation grounds without examining merits. The Tribunal held that while the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot entertain appeals beyond three months, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay and consider cases on merits. Citing SC precedent in Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal noted that statutory authorities can condone delay based on case-specific facts. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing appellants to submit additional evidence regarding service tax liability differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS. en-us Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2024 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450571 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by way of remand after finding that the Principal Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal solely on limitation grounds without examining merits. The Tribunal held that while the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot entertain appeals beyond three months, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay and consider cases on merits. Citing SC precedent in Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal noted that statutory authorities can condone delay based on case-specific facts. The matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing appellants to submit additional evidence regarding service tax liability differences between ST-3 returns and Form 26AS. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450571