2014 (10) TMI 165 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Jurisdiction of Commissioner to condone delay - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay after expiry of 30 days period as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. We agree with the submission of the Revenue that there is no power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay. The wrong mentioning of the period of limitation in the preamble cannot override the statutory provision. We also notice that the Tribunal in the case of Raghav Industries (2008 (5) TMI 537 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and Sagar Enterprises (2009 (4) TMI 690 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) dismissed the appeal on the similar ground - No reason to interfere with order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal filed beyond condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeal.
- Impact of wrong mentioning of limitation period in adjudication order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the issue of the appellant filing an appeal beyond the condonable period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on this ground, as the appellant filed the appeal after the prescribed period. The appellant received the adjudication order on a specific date and was required to file the appeal within a certain timeframe, including the condonable period. However, the appeal was filed after the specified deadline, leading to the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the Preamble of the adjudication order mentioned a different timeframe for filing the appeal, which was not updated after an amendment to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The counsel contended that the appellant should not be penalized for the Revenue's failure to update the Preamble. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision in support of this argument. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit, even in cases of incorrect mention of the filing period in the adjudication order.

3. The Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises v. CCE Jamshedpur clarified that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not possess the power to condone delays beyond the specified period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision underscores that the appellate authority cannot entertain appeals filed after the prescribed timeframe, regardless of any errors in the adjudication order. The Tribunal's decisions in similar cases were also cited to support the position that incorrect mention of the limitation period does not override statutory provisions.

4. Considering the arguments and legal precedents, the judgment concludes that the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeal due to being filed beyond the condonable period. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that the incorrect mention of the limitation period in the adjudication order does not grant the Commissioner (Appeals) the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.