2018 (6) TMI 1009 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - Held that - The appeal filed on 22.07.2013 is beyond the condonation power of Commissioner (Appeals) - The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly passed the impugned order by rejecting appeal of the Appellant on point of limitation - there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have condoned the delay being out of his power - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-In-Appeal on grounds of limitation and non-payment of service tax.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Order-In-Appeal dated 08.10.2014 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Pune-II. The Appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the ground of providing services of sale of SIM Cards and making new subscribers under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to a specific company. The SCN proposed a demand of service tax for a specific period along with interest and penalties under relevant sections of FA, 1994. The Appellant neither replied to the SCN nor attended the Personal hearing. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The appeal was filed after the prescribed period of limitation, leading to its rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of limitation.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation, as it was received by the Appellant after the prescribed deadline. The Appellant failed to meet the timeline for filing the appeal, which led to its rejection. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied the provisions related to the timeline for filing appeals and the condonation of delays. The Appellant's failure to adhere to the statutory timelines resulted in the rejection of the appeal.

3. The revenue submitted that the appeal was rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being time-barred. Additionally, it was highlighted that the service tax amount was recovered by the Appellant from the concerned company, indicating a lack of merit in the Appellant's case. The revenue's argument further supported the rejection of the appeal on grounds of limitation and lack of substantive merit.

4. Upon hearing the arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeal on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal found no errors in the decision-making process of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the timeline for filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appeal based on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing the significance of adhering to prescribed timelines in legal proceedings. The failure to file the appeal within the stipulated period led to the dismissal of the appeal, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in such matters.