2018 (2) TMI 932 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 256 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) - Held that - as per Section 85(3) which is applicable during the relevant period, which provides that an appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of the authority, relating to service tax, interest or penalty - Further the proviso to this section provides that the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 3 months, allow it to be presented within a further period of three months. In this case, even after allowing the condonation of 3 months, still the appeal is beyond the time and therefore the Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal on limitation. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application seeking COD of 464 days in filing the appeal due to health and financial reasons.
2. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground of delay of 256 days.
3. Interpretation of Section 85(3) regarding the time limit for filing an appeal.

Analysis:

1. The applicant sought condonation of delay (COD) of 464 days in filing the appeal, citing health issues and financial difficulties as reasons. The applicant underwent cardiac surgery and faced challenges due to a change in residence, leading to non-receipt of the order under appeal. The Tribunal noted the unintentional nature of the delay and decided to hear the appeal on merit, considering the circumstances presented.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that one appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner(Appeals) due to a delay of 256 days, while four appeals were allowed on merit. The contention was that the Commissioner should have decided the appeal on merit rather than dismissing it solely on the grounds of time bar. The respondent's representative, however, supported the decision of the Commissioner, emphasizing that the appeal was filed well beyond the permissible condonable period of 3 months as prescribed under Section 85(3).

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 85(3) concerning the time limit for filing appeals related to service tax, interest, or penalty. It was noted that the Commissioner(Appeals) had the authority to condone a delay of up to 3 months beyond the initial 3-month period. Referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds. Despite the allowance for condonation, the appeal remained outside the extended time frame, leading to the affirmation of the Commissioner's decision.

In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the Commissioner's discretion in condoning delays, and the interpretation of relevant legal provisions. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and established legal precedents in determining the outcome of the appeal.