<?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 (2) TMI 1680 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471275</link>
    <description>Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within two months and permits condonation for sufficient cause only for one further month. Delay beyond that statutory outer limit cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal cannot require condonation contrary to the provision. An appeal filed 2,985 days after the prescribed and extendable period remained time-barred, making its rejection legally valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:21:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=919433" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1680 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471275</link>
      <description>Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) within two months and permits condonation for sufficient cause only for one further month. Delay beyond that statutory outer limit cannot be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Tribunal cannot require condonation contrary to the provision. An appeal filed 2,985 days after the prescribed and extendable period remained time-barred, making its rejection legally valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>