2017 (4) TMI 387 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - condonation of appeal - issuance of Corrigendum - Held that - the order-in-original was passed on 31-10-2012 and the appeal was filed on 27-2-2013. It would be seen that after the order was passed on 31-10-2012, there was some mistake in the order was noticed. Corrigendum was issued on 31-12-2012 for correcting the amount of penalty. Naturally the appeal period will have to be computed from the corrected date of the order as that is the order that would be executable - if the Corrigendum is considered, then naturally the appeal would be within limitation - appeal maintainable and is to be considered on merits.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal dismissal due to delay in filing within limitation, Commissioner's power to condone delay, relevance of corrigendum in computing limitation period.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court addressed the issue of the dismissal of an appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being outside the limitation period and the Commissioner's authority to condone such delays. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the dismissal of their appeal due to a perceived delay, with the Commissioner allegedly lacking the power to overlook this delay. The respondent's counsel cited relevant judgments, including one from the Apex Court, to argue against the extension of the limitation period due to a subsequent corrigendum. However, the court considered the significance of the corrigendum in rectifying mistakes in the original order and highlighted a similar ruling by the Jharkhand High Court where the limitation period was counted from the date of the corrigendum.

The court acknowledged the principle that the Commissioner (Appeals) typically cannot condone delays exceeding 30 days. Nevertheless, in this case, the court emphasized the importance of considering the corrigendum, which effectively brought the appeal within the limitation period. By recognizing the corrected date of the order as the relevant one for computing the limitation period, the court overturned the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to evaluate the petitioner's appeal on its merits. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order and instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal's consideration without imposing any costs.