9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 798 - AT - Service TaxTime Limitation - appeal stands filed after the normal period of three months provided for filing an appeal as also even after the extended period of three months for which the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone the delay - Held that - After receipt of Order-in-Original, the appellant filed a rectification of mistake application before the Adjudicating Authority in terms of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said Section provides for filing of such rectification applications within the period of two years and admittedly the ROM was filed by the assessee within the said period i.e., 16.08.2011. The same was rejected by the authority on 15.02.2012, which order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals). Whether the date of the original order has to be taken as the relevant date for the purpose of computing the limitation or the date on which the ROM Order was passed, has to be considered as the relevant date? - Held that - The issue stands considered by the Tribunal in the case of Sree Lotus Exports vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 2011 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, CHENNAI and in the case of United Corporation vs. Commissioner of C. EX. Chandigarh 2015 (6) TMI 1033 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , it stands held that the time period of filing appeal has to be reckoned from the date of rejection of ROM Application. Thus, the relevant date would be 15.02.2012 and the appeal filed on 19.07.2012 would be within the powers of Commissioner (Appeals), for condoning the delay if any. Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the limitation aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Appeal rejected on the point of limitation by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 3. High Court set aside Tribunal's order. 4. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay. 5. Filing of rectification of mistake application. 6. Relevant date for computing limitation period. Analysis: 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the point of limitation, stating it was filed after the normal and extended periods allowed for filing an appeal. The Tribunal, in its Final Order, decided the issue on merits and remanded the matter for fresh consideration based on a Supreme Court decision. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, directing a review of whether the appeal was filed within the limitation period. 2. The appellant received the Original Adjudicating Authority's order on 01.12.2010 but filed a rectification of mistake application instead of a direct appeal within the limitation period. The application was rejected, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was also rejected as time-barred. 3. The law on the Commissioner (Appeals) condoning delays beyond the statutory period was clarified by the Supreme Court. However, in this case, the appellant filed a rectification of mistake application within the prescribed period, which was rejected, leading to the appeal being filed. The question of the relevant date for computing the limitation period arose. 4. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that the time period for filing an appeal should be calculated from the date of rejection of the rectification of mistake application. Therefore, the appeal filed on 19.07.2012 was within the Commissioner (Appeals)' powers to condone delay if necessary. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to decide the limitation aspect and the appeal on merits. 5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the need to consider the relevant date for computing the limitation period to ensure a fair review of the case. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural aspects and legal principles involved in the case, leading to a comprehensive understanding of the decision.
|
