<?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 1938 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465272</link>
    <description>Where the statute prescribes a fixed limitation period for filing an appeal and excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that period. The court treated the point as covered by binding precedent and noted that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal could extend time beyond the statutory limit. The challenge to dismissal of the appeal as time-barred therefore failed, and the order rejecting the appeal on limitation was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2025 11:30:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1938 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465272</link>
      <description>Where the statute prescribes a fixed limitation period for filing an appeal and excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond that period. The court treated the point as covered by binding precedent and noted that neither the Commissioner (Appeals) nor the Tribunal could extend time beyond the statutory limit. The challenge to dismissal of the appeal as time-barred therefore failed, and the order rejecting the appeal on limitation was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>