2018 (6) TMI 854 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of Delay of 47 days in filing appeal - time limitation - Held that - The legislature intended the appellant authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the normal period of preferring appeal - the appeal is rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994; Interpretation of time limitation for filing appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment deals with the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant had filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking condonation of a 47-day delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the explanation provided for the delay was considered to be a sufficient cause, which is a term used in various statutes to denote adequacy or enough justification. The Tribunal emphasized that there is no fixed formula for accepting or rejecting explanations for delays. In this case, the delay of 47 days was deemed to have a sufficient cause, and as a result, the Miscellaneous Applications were allowed, and the appeals were restored to their respective numbers.

Interpretation of Time Limitation for Filing Appeals:
The judgment also delves into the interpretation of time limitation for filing appeals under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal of the appellants against the original order, citing that it was filed beyond the maximum period of limitation. The Tribunal referred to a previous order and highlighted that as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, an appeal to the Commissioner can be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order. The provision allows for a further period of 30 days if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial 60 days. The judgment clarified that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of the initial 60-day period, excluding the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly rejected the appeal as being time-barred, leading to the dismissal of the appeals at hand.

In conclusion, the judgment extensively analyzed the issues of condonation of delay in filing the appeal under the Finance Act, 1994, and the interpretation of time limitation for filing appeals under the Central Excise Act. It emphasized the importance of providing sufficient cause for delays and clarified the legislative intent behind the time limitation provisions, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the appeals due to being time-barred.