2009 (1) TMI 157 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal to Commissioner (A) - appeal was preferred before the appropriate appellate authority however it was filed inadvertently in the office of the Deputy Commissioner-IV which is situated in the same premises where the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) is located - appeal has been filed by the appellants within the time-limit prescribed though wrongly in another office - The Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal as time-barred is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for decision on merits after hearing the appellants further pre-deposit of penalties is waived

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition against imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Appeal dismissed as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Stay petition against imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994

The stay petition was filed by the applicants contesting the penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The penalties included Rs. 100/- per day under Section 76, Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 for delay in filing ST-3 Returns, and Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 78. The applicants had already paid the service tax along with interest, which was considered sufficient compliance with the provisions. Consequently, the pre-deposit of the penalties was dispensed with, and the recovery thereof was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

Issue 2: Appeal dismissed as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals)

The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the appellants as time-barred. However, upon further examination, it was found that the appeal had been inadvertently filed in the wrong office of the Deputy Commissioner-IV instead of the appropriate appellate authority within the premises. The appeal was filed well before the due date, and it was determined that the appeal was within the time-limit prescribed. As a result, the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the case was remanded back for a decision on merits after hearing the appellants, with a directive for the Commissioner to decide the case within three months of the receipt of the remand order.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellants with an opportunity for a fair hearing on the merits of their case.

(Pronounced in the court)