2013 (8) TMI 884 - AT - Service Tax

Modification of the Stay Order - Demand of pre deposit - Bar of limitation - Held that - On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) almost after one year and six months after the adjudication order was passed. The learned AR on behalf of the Revenue placed the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur - 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court was followed in the case of M/s. Gopinath & Sharma v. CESTAT - 2013 (4) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . It is well settled that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. - No reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided aganst assessee.

Summary

Issues: Modification of Stay Order, Appeal Dismissal on Grounds of Limitation

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI, the appellant sought modification of the Stay Order directing pre-deposit of dues. The appellant argued that the stay order was passed ex parte and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed due to a delay of one year and six months in filing after the adjudication order. The tribunal, after hearing both sides, recalled the stay order and proceeded to hear the appeal. Upon reviewing the impugned order and considering relevant legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was concluded that the delay in filing the appeal could not be condoned beyond the stipulated period. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appellant's appeal and disposing of the miscellaneous and stay applications.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the inability to condone delays beyond the specified period. The legal principle established through this case, following precedents like Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur and M/s. Gopinath & Sharma v. CESTAT, emphasizes the strict adherence to time limits in appellate procedures. The tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal underscores the significance of procedural compliance in tax matters and the consequences of failing to meet statutory timelines. Overall, the judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and limitations within the appellate process, guiding parties to adhere to prescribed timelines to avoid adverse outcomes.