2018 (4) TMI 1245 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Held that - the statutory appeal is required to be filed in case of service tax matter under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of three months before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay by further period of three months. The present appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of three months but within the condonable period - the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned - Matter remanded for deciding the issue on merits. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal; Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Central Excise on grounds of limitation; Statutory appeal filing period under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment addresses an application seeking condonation of a 65-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. Despite the delay, the Tribunal condones it based on the reasons provided in the application, allowing the Miscellaneous Application (COD).

Dismissal on Grounds of Limitation:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, dated 25.04.2017. The Revenue argued that the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed beyond the statutory three-month period required under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) could condone the delay for an additional three months, but the appellant filed the appeal after the statutory period and within the condonable period.

Statutory Appeal Filing Period:
The Tribunal observed that the appeal was indeed filed beyond the statutory three-month period but within the condonable period. It noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not decide on the merit of the issue but dismissed it as time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on the merits, and instructed to grant a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case and produce evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals while also recognizing the possibility of condonation under specific circumstances as provided by the law.