9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 1225 - AT - Service TaxApplication for condonation of delay - delay in filing appeal - signature of authorized signatory missing - Held that - the appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of three months and the condonable period of three months prescribed under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it was held that, the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months as prescribed under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax/CENVAT Credit and penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994
Analysis: 1. The appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 277 days in filing the appeal and the absence of the authorized signatory's signature. The Revenue argued that the order was communicated to the Appellant within the prescribed time. The Commissioner(Appeals) rightly observed that the appeal was filed late, beyond the condonable limit of three months under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commr. Of Central Excise, it was stated that the Commissioner(Appeals) lacks the power to condone the delay beyond the statutory and condonable three-month period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the Stay Petition was disposed of. 2. The key grounds for the dismissal of the appeal were the delay in filing and the absence of the authorized signatory's signature. The statutory and condonable period of three months under section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 were crucial factors. The judgment in Singh Enterprises case set a precedent that guided the decision in this case. Despite arguments from the Appellant, the dismissal was upheld based on the legal limitations regarding the condonable period for filing appeals. The communication of the order to the Appellant within the prescribed time played a significant role in the final decision.
|
