https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464798 CESTAT New Delhi - AT dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation because it was filed after the one-month extension following the two-month statutory period under s.85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal held that s.35 of the Central Excise Act is pari materia with s.85(3A), and per the SC's interpretation the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond thirty days after the sixty-day limitation; therefore dismissal on limitation grounds was justified. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2025 15:39:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464798 CESTAT New Delhi - AT dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation because it was filed after the one-month extension following the two-month statutory period under s.85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal held that s.35 of the Central Excise Act is pari materia with s.85(3A), and per the SC's interpretation the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond thirty days after the sixty-day limitation; therefore dismissal on limitation grounds was justified. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 10 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464798