2016 (1) TMI 740 - AT - Service Tax

Conodonation of delay in filing of an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - appellant submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) occurred mainly due to the reason that the appellant handed over the papers to Advocate Shri S.K. Sharma who did not follow up the case in time. - Held that - there is no power to condone delay beyond condonable period under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. - Commissioner (Appeals) cannot exercise powers beyond condonable period of limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Condonation denied - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to advocate's negligence, time limitation for filing appeals under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, Tribunal's power to direct Commissioner (Appeals) to admit appeal with delay of 800 days.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals against the order-in-appeal dated 17/11/2014 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow, concerning non-payment of service tax by the appellants engaged in providing taxable service of Management, Maintenance, or repair. The Original Authority confirmed service tax demand and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both appeals as time-barred under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, leading to the appellants approaching the Tribunal for redress.

The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was due to their advocate's negligence. The appellant, being unaware of legal procedures, relied entirely on the advocate, resulting in a significant delay. On the other hand, the respondent contended that there was an 800-day delay in filing the appeals, exceeding the permissible limit of three months for filing appeals under the Finance Act, 1994.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, deliberated on whether it could direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an appeal with an 800-day delay. It was noted that the legal provision under the Finance Act, 1994 clearly stipulated a three-month limit for filing appeals, with no provision for condonation beyond that period. Various case laws cited by the appellant were found irrelevant as they pertained to different legislations or dealt with appeals before the Tribunal, not addressing the specific issue at hand.

Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized that statutory time limits prescribed by the Finance Act, 1994 could not be overridden by any authority. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked the power to grant the appellant's plea for directing the admission of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the substantial delay. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed, upholding the lower Appellate Authority's decision on the question of time bar.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the strict adherence to the statutory time limits for filing appeals under the Finance Act, 1994, highlighting the significance of timely compliance with legal procedures and the limitations on condonation of delays beyond the prescribed period.