9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 413 - HC - Service TaxPeriod of limitation - delayed filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) - Demand of Service tax & Education Cess - Appeal filed by appellant beyond the maximum prescribed period of 3 months - Held that - the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , while dealing with Section 35 of the Central Excise Act has held that the Commissioner did not have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the day of expiry of 60 days prescribed for filing statutory appeals. Therefore, having regard to the decision of Supreme Court no merit found in the appeal. - Decided against the appellant
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act. 2. Interpretation of Section 85(4)(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Comparison of Section 85(4)(3A) with Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70. Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to condone delay in filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act The appellant had filed an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period of 3 months. The Commissioner held that he lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay if the appeal exceeded the statutory period of two months plus an additional one month. This decision was based on the case law and interpretation of relevant provisions. Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 85(4)(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 Section 85(4)(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 specifies the time limit for filing an appeal from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. The provision allows for a further period of one month for filing the appeal if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting it within the initial two-month period. The Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of this provision in the context of the case at hand. Issue 3: Comparison of Section 85(4)(3A) with Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 The judgment highlighted that Section 85(4)(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 is similar to Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70 was cited to emphasize that the Commissioner does not possess the authority to condone the delay beyond a specified period. This comparison was crucial in determining the jurisdiction and limitations of the Commissioner in such matters. Issue 4: Application of the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70 The Tribunal's decision aligned with the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70. The judgment emphasized that based on this precedent, the Commissioner did not have the power to extend the period for filing appeals beyond the prescribed limits. The dismissal of the appeal was in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, the comparison with existing laws, and the application of precedent in determining the jurisdiction and limitations of the Commissioner in condoning delays in filing appeals under the Finance Act.
|
