<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (5) TMI 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770665</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed limitation periods for appeals under the Finance Act, 1994. The key holding established that the dispatch date, not receipt date, determines appeal timeliness. The Tribunal found the appeal was timely filed and improperly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded for substantive consideration, emphasizing procedural fairness in computing limitation periods.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 07:32:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=821872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770665</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed limitation periods for appeals under the Finance Act, 1994. The key holding established that the dispatch date, not receipt date, determines appeal timeliness. The Tribunal found the appeal was timely filed and improperly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was remanded for substantive consideration, emphasizing procedural fairness in computing limitation periods.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770665</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>