2019 (3) TMI 1792 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - appeals dismissed on the ground of limitation, as the appeals were preferred after 60 days and thereafter, the condonable period of one month i.e. after total period of 90 days - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, the extraordinary situation pressed in service is to the effect that after passing of the assessment order, the petitioner was engaged in personal tragedy as his daughter was facing marital dispute, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within limitation or during the condonable period. The extra ordinary situation pressed by learned counsel for the petitioners is not of such nature, which had paralysed the petitioner's business or his life. It is not in dispute that during the relevant period, the petitioner was carrying on his business, therefore, there was no such pressing emergency which did not permit the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to final orders of CESTAT on grounds of limitation
- Applicability of Supreme Court ruling in Singh Enterprises case
- Consideration of extraordinary circumstances for condonation of delay in filing appeal

Analysis:

The High Court heard petitions challenging final orders of CESTAT dismissing appeals on grounds of limitation, as they were filed after 60 days with an additional condonable period of one month. The Court noted that the facts and issues were common in all petitions and thus disposed of them collectively. The issue raised in the petitions had already been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Jamshedpur, 2008. The Court referred to a previous order in M/s. Shri Sai Rolling Mill case, where an appeal was entertained due to different circumstances.

In the M/s. Shri Sai Rolling Mill case, the Court considered extraordinary circumstances where the original assessee was not the petitioner, leading to a different outcome. However, in the present case, the petitioner's personal tragedy involving a marital dispute with his daughter was not deemed an extraordinary situation that prevented timely appeal filing. The Court distinguished the present case from the M/s. Shri Sai Rolling Mill case based on the nature of the circumstances presented.

Ultimately, the Court held that the extraordinary situation claimed by the petitioners did not meet the threshold for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. As the petitions fell within the scope of the law established by the Supreme Court in the Singh Enterprises case, they were deemed not maintainable and were consequently dismissed.