https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462970 The CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed statutory period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1944. The adjudication order was communicated on 30.11.2019, requiring the appeal to be filed within two months, i.e., by 29.01.2020, with a maximum condonation period of one additional month until 29.02.2020. The appeal was filed on 17.03.2020, exceeding both the normal and extended timelines. The tribunal held that where a special statute prescribes a limitation period, it must be strictly followed, and no condonation beyond that is permissible. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. en-us Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:29:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462970 The CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing beyond the prescribed statutory period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1944. The adjudication order was communicated on 30.11.2019, requiring the appeal to be filed within two months, i.e., by 29.01.2020, with a maximum condonation period of one additional month until 29.02.2020. The appeal was filed on 17.03.2020, exceeding both the normal and extended timelines. The tribunal held that where a special statute prescribes a limitation period, it must be strictly followed, and no condonation beyond that is permissible. Consequently, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462970