9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1312 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax - time limitation - adjudication order was passed on 18-12-2014 and the same was reviewed by the reviewing authority on 13-3-2015, thereafter on 8-4-2015, the appeal was filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - As the time limit prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 is that any person aggrieved from adjudication order is required to file the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) within 60 days of the receipt of the adjudication order and the said period can be extended by another one month if reasons of causing delay has been explained satisfactorily. Admittedly, in the case in hand the appeals have been filed beyond the extended period of time limit prescribed under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and the said aspect has not been examined by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while entertaining the appeal filed by the Revenue which is in gross negligence while entertaining the appeal. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone beyond its jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to delay in filing the appeal.
Issue 1: Time limit for filing appeal under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant appealed against the rejection of the refund claim by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay in filing the appeal. The appellant provided the dates of the adjudication order, review by the reviewing authority, and the filing of the appeal. The bench noted that as per Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994, an appeal must be filed within 60 days of receiving the adjudication order, with a possible one-month extension for justified delays. In this case, the appeal was filed beyond the extended period, and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not assess this aspect when accepting the appeal filed by the Revenue. The tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded jurisdiction by entertaining the appeal, leading to the impugned order being unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in entertaining appeals filed beyond the prescribed time limit. The tribunal emphasized that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) must adhere to the time limits set under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 for filing appeals against adjudication orders. In this case, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the appeal's timeliness, leading to a situation where the impugned order was deemed legally unsustainable. By allowing the appeal, the tribunal underscored the importance of respecting statutory time limits and ensuring that jurisdictional boundaries are not overstepped by adjudicating authorities. The decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with any consequential relief highlighted the significance of procedural compliance in legal matters. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH addressed the issue of a refund claim rejection appeal due to a delay in filing, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits under the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in entertaining the appeal filed beyond the prescribed period, leading to the impugned order being set aside. This decision underscored the necessity of procedural compliance and respect for jurisdictional boundaries in legal proceedings.
|
