2014 (9) TMI 488 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 40 days over and above the condonable period - delay in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - according to appellant, the said delay was on account of lapses on the part of counsel to whom the matter was entrusted and there was no deliberate intention. - Held that - beyond six months from the date of service of the order impugned, Appellate Authority cannot consider application for condonation of delay and there is justification in rejecting such application filed by the appellant. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
2. Interpretation of the condonable period under the Finance Act.
3. Applicability of general law on limitation in specific statutory provisions.

Analysis:

1. The appellant challenged a service tax demand of Rs. 6 lakh and interest, which was confirmed by the first respondent. The appeal was filed after the condonable period, and the Appellate Tribunal rejected it, stating that the delay cannot be condoned beyond the prescribed period. The appellant argued that since the tax demand was arbitrary and illegal, the delay should be condoned. However, the court held that such contentions cannot be entertained in an appeal under a specific statute, distinguishing it from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. The appellant claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to lapses on the part of their counsel, with no deliberate intention. The court noted that the Act provided a specific timeline for filing an appeal, with a condonable period of three months after the initial three months. Citing a precedent, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no merit was found and condonation of delay could not be considered beyond the statutory limit.

3. The court examined Section 85(3) of the Finance Act and relevant case law, including Amchong Tea Estate v. Union of India. It was argued that when a specific period is prescribed as condonable, the Appellate Authority lacks the power to extend the delay beyond that period. Relying on the principle that special laws override general laws, the court held that the Appellate Authority cannot entertain applications for condonation of delay beyond the statutory timeframe. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for interference.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limitations on the Appellate Authority's power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period.