2012 (7) TMI 807 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - order dated 21-01-2009 was received by the applicant on 18-2-2010 by fax Held that - Appeal was filed on 24-03-2010 and there is a delay of more than one year filing the appeal - Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act - appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal on grounds of time bar.

The appellant filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred. The revenue contended that the adjudication order was received by the appellant on a specific date, and the appeal was filed within the normal limitation period. However, the revenue argued that the order was sent via speed post on a different date, and as it was not delivered, it was presumed to have been served. The appellant failed to provide evidence of non-receipt of the order through speed post. The revenue further highlighted that the appeal was filed with a delay of over a year, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone delays exceeding thirty days, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2008 (223) ELT 163.

In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the dispatch of the adjudication order via speed post and noted that it was not returned undelivered. The appellant did not furnish any evidence to demonstrate non-receipt of the order. Given the delay of more than a year in filing the appeal and the statutory limitation on the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays beyond thirty days, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no grounds to overturn the order. Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Singh Enterprises, which restricts the Commissioner (Appeals) from condoning delays beyond the specified period, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was consequently dismissed.