2014 (7) TMI 884 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - delay of 32 days - Tribunal dismissed the appeal - Held that - the order -in- original was pasted on the premises of the appellant on 06.10.2010 under a Mahazar before two independent witnesses as required under Section 37C(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, since the appellant was not available in the premises and the premises was also locked. That is the effective date of service. However, the appellant construed as if the order was affixed only on 06.10.2011 and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with a petition to condone the delay of 32 days. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the date of service of summons was only 06.10.2010 and not 06.10.2011 and dismissed the appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. - appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal challenging order dismissing appeal due to delay in filing.
2. Dismissal of appeal without considering plea of limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in operating staff buses for a company, faced service tax demands for not registering, paying tax, and filing returns for services provided. Lower Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) who dismissed it as time-barred due to a significant delay in filing after the order was pasted. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal based on the delay. The appellant questioned these decisions on substantial legal questions regarding the dismissal due to the delay of 32 days and the failure to consider the plea of limitation.

2. The Court examined the timeline of events, noting the date the order was pasted and the subsequent filing of the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal decisions were based on the strict interpretation of the limitation period, following precedents set by the Supreme Court and previous decisions of the High Court. The Court concurred with the cited decisions, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond the specified period. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order and denying any relief to the appellant. No costs were awarded in this matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues raised, the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the Court's decision based on the interpretation of the law and relevant precedents.