2015 (5) TMI 886 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - Applicability of Limitation Act - Revenue argued that, Normally, the assesses are taking a chance by filing a matter directly in the High Court which is always at the peril and risk of the petitioner, specially when delay is not condonable. This petitioner is not exception to chance taking petitioner. - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) have no power, jurisdiction and authority to condone the delay beyond thirty days - Decision in the case of M/s. Flemingo (Duty Free Shop) Pvt. Ltd., Sandvik Asia Private Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) And Others 2015 (1) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT followed - decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Legal precedents and their applicability.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The core issue in this case is whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeals due to being filed beyond the period of condonable delay. The petitioner argued that the delay should be condoned based on Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. The petitioner cited several decisions, including those from the Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court, to support this claim. However, the respondent contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no authority to condone delays beyond the statutory period as specified under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The court agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond the permissible period.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
The petitioner sought to apply Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the time spent in previous writ petitions. The court noted that the writ petition (T) No. 7713 of 2013 was filed after the limitation period for filing an appeal had already expired. Furthermore, the court highlighted that Section 14 is applicable only when proceedings are bona fide and in a court without jurisdiction. The court concluded that Section 14 could not be applied in this case as the writ petition was filed after the limitation period and there was no defect of jurisdiction in the original proceedings.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994:
The court examined the jurisdiction and authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. It was noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone delays up to a maximum of 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period for filing an appeal. The court referred to the statutory provisions and previous Supreme Court rulings, including Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, which clarified that the appellate authority has no power to condone delays beyond the specified period. The court found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to dismiss the appeals for being filed beyond the condonable period.

4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The court reviewed various legal precedents cited by both parties. The petitioner relied on cases such as Ketan V. Parekh vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, and Coal India Limited vs. Ujjal Transport Agency to argue for the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The respondent cited decisions from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court, which emphasized the limitations on the appellate authority's power to condone delays. The court agreed with the respondent's interpretation, noting that the cited precedents supported the view that the appellate authority cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted within the bounds of the law by dismissing the appeals for being filed beyond the condonable period. The petitioner's reliance on Section 14 of the Limitation Act was found to be misplaced, as the writ petition was filed after the limitation period and there was no defect of jurisdiction in the original proceedings. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

← Previous Next →