9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1994 - Held that:- by following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Albert & Company Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai [2014 (3) TMI 655 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the first respondent has rightly dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, since the first respondent does not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months, as provided under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 01.12.2014, dismissed the appeal stating that the appeal has been preferred beyond the statutory time limit of three months and also beyond the condonable period of a further three months provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal, preferred by the petitioners, was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court held that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late and refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay should be properly explained by the authority who seeks for condonation of delay. 6. Countering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal does not have the power or the authority to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute, for entertaining the appeal. The Division Bench also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for coming to the conclusion that the appellate Tribunal does not have the power or authority to extend the period of limitation. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
