<?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 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774278</link>
    <description>Limitation for filing an appeal runs from effective service of the adjudication order, and mere dispatch is not enough without proof of delivery. Where the record did not establish valid service on the earlier date relied on by the department, the date of actual receipt had to be treated as the relevant date for computing limitation. On that basis, the appeal fell within the condonable period, the limitation objection could not be sustained, and the appellate order was set aside with remand for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 346 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774278</link>
      <description>Limitation for filing an appeal runs from effective service of the adjudication order, and mere dispatch is not enough without proof of delivery. Where the record did not establish valid service on the earlier date relied on by the department, the date of actual receipt had to be treated as the relevant date for computing limitation. On that basis, the appeal fell within the condonable period, the limitation objection could not be sustained, and the appellate order was set aside with remand for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>