https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753521 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by condoning delay in filing before Commissioner (Appeals-II). The tribunal found that appellant had filed appeal on 10.02.2017 through Sevottam Cell with proper acknowledgement seal, within prescribed two-month period from receipt of original order on 14.12.2016. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing appeal solely on delay grounds without examining merits or considering Sevottam system for document submission. Case remanded to Commissioner (Appeals-II) for fresh adjudication on merits under Section 85(3A) Finance Act, 1994. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2024 08:14:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753521 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal by condoning delay in filing before Commissioner (Appeals-II). The tribunal found that appellant had filed appeal on 10.02.2017 through Sevottam Cell with proper acknowledgement seal, within prescribed two-month period from receipt of original order on 14.12.2016. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing appeal solely on delay grounds without examining merits or considering Sevottam system for document submission. Case remanded to Commissioner (Appeals-II) for fresh adjudication on merits under Section 85(3A) Finance Act, 1994. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753521