2014 (7) TMI 630 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before commissioner (appeals) - Bar of limitation - Held that - Appellant is not an educated person and is aged about 76 years and therefore they could not engage any educated person to look after this appeal. We find that the appellant has not disputed the delay of filing the appeal. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE (2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Time-barred appeal, lack of opportunity for hearing, appellant's age and education level

Time-barred appeal:
The appeal in question was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred. The Order-in-Original was dated 12.7.2011, and the appeal was filed on 15.7.2013, exceeding the two-year limit from the date of the original order. The appellant argued in the appeal memo that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order without granting a hearing and cited their lack of education and age (76 years) as reasons for not engaging educated assistance. However, the appellant did not contest the delay in filing the appeal. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises Vs. CCE 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC), which states that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond the specified period, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

Lack of opportunity for hearing:
The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide an opportunity for a hearing before passing the order. Despite this argument, the Tribunal did not find this as a valid reason to interfere with the Commissioner's decision. The lack of a hearing opportunity did not outweigh the fact that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible time limit, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Appellant's age and education level:
The appellant's age (76 years) and lack of education were cited as reasons for not being able to engage an educated person to handle the appeal process. While these factors were acknowledged by the Tribunal, they were not considered sufficient grounds to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal provisions regarding the timeline for filing appeals must be adhered to, regardless of the appellant's personal circumstances. As a result, the appeal was rejected based on the time-barred nature of the filing, despite the appellant's age and educational limitations.