2019 (1) TMI 1649 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 824 days in filing the appeal - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond one month in terms of provision of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT - It stands held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. Inasmuch as admittedly there was a delay of 14 months and 17 days in presenting the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), he has rightly refused to condone the same and has rightly rejected the appeal on limitation. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Request for Adjournment for Appellant, Powers of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay beyond prescribed period

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved a case where the appellant, a Municipal Corporation, sought an adjournment due to delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 824 days was attributed to the counsel engaged by the appellant. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as barred by limitation, citing a delay of 14 months and 17 days in filing the appeal before him. The Commissioner noted that he lacked the power to condone the delay beyond one month as per Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, the appellant had not deposited the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, leading to the rejection of the appeal on that ground as well.

Regarding the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays beyond the prescribed period, the Tribunal referred to a precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur. The Supreme Court ruling established that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the authority to condone delays beyond the period specified under the Act. Since there was an admitted delay of 14 months and 17 days in presenting the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of limitation was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in refusing to condone the delay and subsequently rejected the present appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning delays beyond the prescribed period, as established by legal precedents. The case serves as a reminder of the significance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in legal matters to avoid adverse consequences such as appeal rejections based on limitation grounds.