2015 (8) TMI 352 - HC - Service Tax

Validity of Tribunal s order - Bar of limitation - Tribunal s power to condone the delay - Held that - If Tribunal s order are borne in mind, then, the Tribunal s conclusion cannot be said to be perverse or vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal concluded that the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA concludes the issue against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. A similar question in the case of Flemingo (Duty Free Shop) Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-I 2015 (1) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT was considered. The Division Bench following the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court took the same view. - Court cannot put a premium on the negligent act of the petitioner-appellant of not approaching the Appellate Authority in time by exercising our plenary powers - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking direction to Tribunal to entertain a statutory appeal barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition requesting the Tribunal to entertain a statutory appeal despite being time-barred. The Tribunal's power to condone the delay in filing the appeal is restricted by the statute. The petitioner claimed to have diligently paid taxes but disputed a service tax liability imposed by the second respondent. The adjudication order was passed on 31st August, 2012, and the appeal was filed on 11th March, 2013, beyond the prescribed period. The Tribunal found the appeal was not presented in time as required by section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allowed a limited period for filing appeals and condoning delays. The Tribunal's decision was based on established law and previous judgments supporting the Revenue's position.

Conclusion:
The High Court, considering the facts and legal precedents, upheld the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that it cannot interfere in the Tribunal's order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court highlighted that its powers do not allow overriding statutory provisions or passing orders contrary to the law. Therefore, the Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.