https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768656 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s rejection of a time-barred appeal. The tribunal held that service of an order upon one partner of a partnership firm constitutes valid service upon the entire firm, making the order deemed served on 07.04.2017. Under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, appeals must be filed within two months of order receipt, with discretionary extension of one additional month for sufficient cause. Following Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises, the tribunal confirmed that delays beyond the total three-month period cannot be condoned, making the appeal's dismissal proper. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Apr 2025 08:40:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768656 The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed an appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s rejection of a time-barred appeal. The tribunal held that service of an order upon one partner of a partnership firm constitutes valid service upon the entire firm, making the order deemed served on 07.04.2017. Under section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, appeals must be filed within two months of order receipt, with discretionary extension of one additional month for sufficient cause. Following Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises, the tribunal confirmed that delays beyond the total three-month period cannot be condoned, making the appeal's dismissal proper. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 09 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768656