2017 (11) TMI 38 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum to file appeal - Held that - the only and entire argument of Ld. Counsel is that they had filed the appeal in the Office of Hyderabad-IV Commissionerate which is wrong Forum, instead of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on the question of limitation.
2. Admissibility of appeal based on statutory provisions.
3. Failure to establish filing of appeal within the stipulated period.
4. Comparison with a cited case for support.
5. Correctness of findings by the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was dismissed primarily due to being filed beyond the statutory period and the inability to condone the delay. The first appellate authority based its decision on Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandates that an appeal must be presented within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. In this instance, the appellants received the order on 17.01.2014 but filed the appeal on 09.09.2016, significantly exceeding the prescribed time limit. The appellants claimed to have filed the appeal with the wrong authority, but the lack of proper authentication and acknowledgment raised doubts about the filing date and location, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The first appellate authority thoroughly examined the documents produced by the appellants, which were alleged to be the original appeal filed on 18.03.2014. Despite the presence of the Hyderabad IV Commissionerate seal on the papers, the absence of a signed acknowledgment from the departmental officer and the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for this omission weakened the appellants' case. Additionally, a comparison was made with a cited case, Prashanth Projects. Ltd., where the filing of an appeal with the wrong authority was acknowledged and confirmed, unlike in the present case where no concrete evidence supported the appellants' claim of filing with the Hyderabad IV Commissionerate.

The first appellate authority relied on legal precedents, such as the decision in the case of Gopinath & Sharma Vs. CST, Chennai, to support the dismissal of the appeal. The authority emphasized that the absence of evidence showing the bona fide nature of the averment, coupled with the lack of appeal papers filed under acknowledgment, rendered the appeal non-admissible. Ultimately, the first appellate authority found no merit in the appellants' argument that they had mistakenly filed the appeal with the wrong forum, thereby upholding the dismissal decision.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal agreed with the findings of the first appellate authority, deeming them correct and devoid of any need for interference. As a result, the appeal was dismissed based on the failure to adhere to the statutory time limit for filing appeals and the lack of substantial evidence to support the appellants' claims regarding the filing location and date.