Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (2) TMI 263 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 85 (3A).

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Omkar Engineers, appealed against the rejection of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the limitation under Section 85 (3A). The appeal was rejected solely on the ground of limitation, as the appellant filed the appeal after the prescribed time limit. The order-in-original was received on 07/03/2015, and the appeal was required to be presented within two months from that date, i.e., by 07/05/2015. The appellant filed the appeal on 09/07/2015, which was beyond the extended period allowed under the proviso to Section 85 (3A). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that they did not have the authority to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, citing a Supreme Court decision that supported this stance.

The learned Authorized Representative (AR) relied on the impugned order, supporting the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeal based on the limitation issue. However, upon examination of the documents on record, it was found that the appellant had approached the Additional Commissioner for rectification of a mistake in the order-in-original under Section 74 of the Finance Act. The rejection of the application under Section 74 was received by the appellant on 11/05/2015, making the order final from that date. Therefore, the period of limitation should have been counted from 11/05/2015, not from the date the original order was received. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication based on the corrected timeline. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the limitation issue was incorrectly calculated, and the appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication based on the correct timeline from the date the rejection under Section 74 was received. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays within the specified limits as per the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates