2015 (11) TMI 784 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Bar of limitation - whether the appeal filed before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was beyond the period prescribed under Finance Act, 1994 or not and if yes, the Commissioner (Appeals) is having the power to condone the delay or not - Held that - appellant is required to file the appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of 2 months and the period can be extended for further one month on being satisfied and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reasons for causing delay is satisfactory. Beyond the said period, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have no power to condone the delay. Admittedly, in this case, the appeal has been filed after one year and six months. Therefore, learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the appeal as time barred as held by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Agrawal Construction vs. CE, Nagpur 2014 (12) TMI 418 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . In these terms, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, same is upheld - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Power of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing an appeal.

Issue 1: Timeliness of Filing Appeal:
The appellant filed an appeal against an order before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) after a delay of one year and six months from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which requires appeals to be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. The provision allows a further extension of one month if the appellant shows sufficient cause for the delay. In this case, the appeal was clearly filed beyond the prescribed period, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone the delay beyond the specified time limit. The Tribunal upheld the decision, citing a relevant case law to support the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred.

Issue 2: Power to Condone Delay:
The critical issue was whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period. Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 explicitly outlines the time limit for filing appeals and the limited scope for extensions. The provision allows for an additional one-month extension only if the Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing within the initial two-month period. In this case, since the appeal was lodged after a significant delay of one year and six months, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, emphasizing that the statutory provisions did not grant the Commissioner (Appeals) the authority to condone delays exceeding the specified timeline, as supported by a relevant judgment from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to its untimely filing before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and clarified the limited scope for condoning delays as per the provisions of the Act.