9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 104 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 2799 days - Held that - In view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, JSR reported in 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay for a period of three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months as was in force at the relevant point of time, prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Tribunal is also not empowered to condone the said delay - Condonation denied.
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty due to delay in filing appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis: 1. Delay in filing appeal: The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to an inordinate delay of 2799 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue pointed out that the Order-in-Original was served to the appellant on 5/03/2005 by the Range Superintendent after the earlier sent Order-in-Original via Speed Post was returned undelivered. The appellant did not provide any contradictory evidence to rebut this observation. The Tribunal noted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) can only condone a delay of three months beyond the statutory limit of three months prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal, not empowered to condone the delay, upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the excessive delay of 2799 days. 2. Waiver of pre-deposit: The application sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 25.30 Lakhs and an equal amount of penalty. However, the Tribunal, after dismissing the appeal due to the delay in filing, did not address the merits of the application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Tribunal simply disposed of the stay petition without further consideration due to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of delay. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the significant delay in filing, citing the statutory limitations and the inability of the Tribunal to condone such a prolonged delay. The application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty was not addressed separately as the dismissal of the appeal rendered it moot.
|
