2011 (12) TMI 121 - AT - Service Tax

Plea for condonation of delay rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation - Held that - In this case, the delay is of 14 months and therefore the Commissioner has no powers whatsoever to condone the delay. Provisions of Section 85(3) are very clear and provide a specific time limit for filing appeal and therefore, if the provisions of Limitation Act are applied, the provisions of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 become redundant - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against rejection based on limitation period for filing appeal.

In the judgment delivered by Mr. B.S.V. Murthy of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issue revolved around the rejection of an appeal on the grounds of a delay in filing. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services as a Mandap Keeper, was found to have not paid Service Tax properly. The original adjudicating authority confirmed a demand for Service Tax along with interest and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant's challenge to the adjudication order was dismissed due to a delay of 14 months in filing the appeal, with the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that they had no power to condone such a delay. The key question was whether the rejection of the appeal solely on the limitation ground was justified. The appellant argued that the delay could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that as per Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal had to be filed within 3 months from the receipt of the order, and a delay of 14 months could not be condoned. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the specific time limit provided under the Finance Act, which rendered the application of the Limitation Act redundant in this context. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and rejected it accordingly.

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals, particularly in tax matters. It clarifies that specific provisions within a particular statute, such as the Finance Act, will prevail over general provisions in other laws like the Limitation Act. The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of procedural compliance and the limitations on authorities' discretion to condone delays beyond what is explicitly permitted by the governing legislation.