<?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 1621 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771349</link>
    <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed service and limitation issues in a central excise case. The appeal was found timely filed within 60 days of actual order receipt, despite the Department&#039;s claim of dispatch. The court emphasized the need for postal tracking evidence and explicit order dates. Considering COVID-19 pandemic orders condoning delays, the matter was remanded for merits adjudication, rejecting the Commissioner&#039;s limitation-based dismissal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824144" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1621 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771349</link>
      <description>The SC/Tribunal addressed service and limitation issues in a central excise case. The appeal was found timely filed within 60 days of actual order receipt, despite the Department&#039;s claim of dispatch. The court emphasized the need for postal tracking evidence and explicit order dates. Considering COVID-19 pandemic orders condoning delays, the matter was remanded for merits adjudication, rejecting the Commissioner&#039;s limitation-based dismissal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>