2014 (3) TMI 655 - HC - Service Tax

Maintanability of appeal - Bar of limitation - Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7.8.2012, dismissing the appeal as time barred - Held that - It is a well settled position in law that the period of limitation prescribed for the hearing of the appeal, by the Appellate Tribunal, under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, cannot be extended - appellate Tribunal does not have the power or the authority to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute, for entertaining the appeal - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Substantial questions of law raised for consideration:
a. Upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal as time-barred.
b. Whether the Appellate Tribunal should have entertained the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the interest of justice.

Analysis:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal was filed against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the upholding of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal as time-barred and whether the Appellate Tribunal should have entertained the appeal in the interest of justice.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the Appellate Tribunal's order was erroneous and unsustainable in the eye of the law. It was contended that the appeal should have been heard and decided on its merits, as it was a case of ex parte adjudication. The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the violation of natural justice principles in the order under challenge.

3. On the contrary, the respondents' counsel relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the period of limitation for hearing an appeal by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be extended under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. Citing various decisions, the respondents argued against the condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.

4. After considering the submissions and legal precedents cited by both parties, the Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal lacked the authority to extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute for entertaining the appeal. The Court found that the contentions raised by the appellant could not be accepted based on the legal framework and precedents cited. Consequently, the Court dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal, stating that the relief sought by the appellant could not be granted.

5. In the final judgment, the Court highlighted that based on the legal principles and precedents cited, the Appellate Tribunal did not possess the power to extend the statutory period of limitation for entertaining the appeal. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal, emphasizing that the relief sought by the appellant could not be granted within the existing legal framework.