2015 (8) TMI 1257 - HC - Service Tax

Delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (appeals) - condonation of delay - delay even beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed in section 35 - The question is whether the appellant can challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, as there is patent illegality as contended by the appellant, and calls for intervention in the writ jurisdiction. Held that - In our view, if we accept the submission of the appellant that the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner has to be heard on merits though dismissed on the ground of limitation, in an appeal under section 35, it would render the said section as otiose and would open a flood gate of litigations. The very object of section 35 would be defeated. It would encourage the litigants to approach the High Court under the writ jurisdiction at any point of time in breach of the provisions contained in section 35. It has to be borne in mind that the law of limitation does not render the right of a litigant bad in law but it merely prohibits him from pursuing his remedy beyond a point of time. Hence, the judgments relied on behalf of the appellant are not applicable. Appeal dimsissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to order confirming service tax demand, interest, and penalty
- Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise as time-barred
- Applicability of statutory time limits for appeal and condonation of delay
- Merger of orders and jurisdiction of High Court in writ petitions

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order confirming service tax demand, interest, and penalty, along with the dismissal of an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise as time-barred. The appellant argued that the order of the Additional Commissioner, which was not merged with the Commissioner's order, should be considered due to exceptional circumstances. However, the respondent contended that the statutory time limits for appeal and condonation of delay under section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 must be adhered to. The key issue was whether the High Court could intervene in a writ petition challenging an order dismissed on grounds of limitation.

The Court noted that under the Act, an appeal must be filed within sixty days, extendable to ninety days with sufficient cause. As the appeal in this case was beyond the statutory limitation, the Commissioner rightly dismissed it. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Raja Mechanical Company Pvt. Ltd., the Court emphasized that an order dismissed on limitation grounds does not merge with other orders. The appellant's argument to challenge the Additional Commissioner's order was deemed unsustainable as it would undermine the statutory provisions and flood the courts with litigations.

The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on various judgments, emphasizing that the law of limitation restricts the time for seeking remedies but does not invalidate the right itself. Upholding the judgment in Raj Chemicals, the Court held that allowing challenges beyond statutory limits would defeat the purpose of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It further clarified that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot direct authorities to bypass statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and upholding the legislative scheme to prevent abuse of legal processes.