2014 (7) TMI 825 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay for filing of an appeal before commissioner (appeals) - Inordinate delay of 228 days - Held that - As per the provisions of Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal is required to be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the impugned order before the Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), after the amendment which took place by the Finance Act, 2012, made effective from 28.05.2012 - impugned order dated 16.07.2012 issued on 20.07.2012 was received by the appellant on 26.7.2012 and accordingly an appeal was required to be presented on 15.03.2013, which resulted into delay of 5 months and 18 days. Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals) can condone the delay of maximum one month if sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant. As period of delay in filing appeal in the present case is 5 months and 18 days, hence it is beyond the powers vested to me under the statute (Proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994) under which a maximum period of one month of delay can be condoned by the Appellate Authority - No reason to condone the delay in filing the same and thus, hold the appeal filed by the appellant as time barred - Following decision of Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal, scope of authority to condone delay by the first appellate authority, applicability of relevant legal provisions and judgments.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD pertains to an application for condonation of delay and a subsequent appeal filed against an impugned order. The issue at hand was whether the delay of 5 months and 18 days in filing the appeal could be condoned. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing the provisions of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allowed for a maximum condonation of one month for delay. The authority relied on relevant legal provisions and judgments, including M.R. Tobacco Limited vs. UOI and Navinon Limited vs. UOI, to support the decision. The tribunal concurred with the first appellate authority's interpretation, emphasizing that the statute did not provide for condonation of delay beyond 30 days by the first appellate authority. This principle was affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises - 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.).

The tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limited scope of authority for condonation of delay by the first appellate authority. The judgment underscored the need for strict compliance with the prescribed time limits, as outlined in the relevant legal provisions, to maintain procedural integrity and efficiency in the adjudicatory process. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, dismissing the application for condonation of delay, stay petition, and appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment elucidated the legal framework governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals and underscored the significance of statutory provisions in determining the authority's power to grant such condonations. By referencing relevant case law and statutory provisions, the tribunal provided a thorough analysis of the issue at hand and affirmed the decision of the first appellate authority based on established legal principles and precedents.