<?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>2024 (6) TMI 1489 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463121</link>
    <description>An appeal filed nearly three years after receipt of the Order-in-Original was stated to be beyond both the statutory limitation and the condonable period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. On that basis, and relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal noted that it had no power to condone the delay. The consequence recorded was that the appeal was not maintainable on limitation grounds and the delay could not be condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2025 20:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=841709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1489 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463121</link>
      <description>An appeal filed nearly three years after receipt of the Order-in-Original was stated to be beyond both the statutory limitation and the condonable period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. On that basis, and relying on binding precedent, the Tribunal noted that it had no power to condone the delay. The consequence recorded was that the appeal was not maintainable on limitation grounds and the delay could not be condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463121</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>