2013 (5) TMI 26 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 657 days in filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that - Appeals in the present case not filed in time. There is abnormal delay even after receipt of impugned orders on time. An appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the order of such adjudicating authority, relating to service tax, interest or penalty & further period of three months on sufficient cause. Accordingly the appeals have not been filed in stipulated period as has been dealt with in Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994. As the delay occurred at in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) level and Tribunal cannot use its power of condonation of delay which is exercisable for orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals). COD Application rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) against two separate Order-in-Originals.

Analysis:

1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the significant delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against two distinct Order-in-Originals. The delays were 657 days for one appeal and 256 days for the other. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly noted that the impugned orders were communicated to the appellants on specific dates, and the appeals were filed well beyond the prescribed time limits. The Finance Act 1994, Section 85, governs the condonation of delay in such matters, stipulating a three-month period for filing appeals from the date of receipt of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals, citing the abnormal delays and the failure to file within the statutory timeframe.

2. The Tribunal was approached with a plea for condonation of delay in filing the appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) orders. However, it was argued that the Tribunal's power to condone delays is limited to orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and does not extend to delays in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) itself. Consequently, the Tribunal found itself unable to exercise its power of condonation of delay for the appeals in question. As a result, the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals themselves were rejected. Additionally, stay applications were deemed not maintainable and dismissed accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limited scope of the Tribunal's power to condone delays. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the consequences of failing to comply with the prescribed time limits in matters of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).