2018 (8) TMI 904 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - improper documents - Held that - The facts are that the BSNL did not challenge the Order in Original for nearly three years on the grounds which even otherwise do not inspire confidence. The period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 is three months - As per the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 85, such period could be extended by the appellate Commissioner on sufficient cause being shown by a further period of three months. The delay is inordinate. The explanation for such long delay is in any case not sufficient - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging orders of duty demand, appeal delay, applicability of limitation period, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.

Analysis:
The petitioner, BSNL, challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise confirming a duty demand of ?32,84,645 with interest and penalty due to improper documentations for availing Cenvat credit. Despite waiting for a legal opinion, BSNL did not challenge the order for almost three years. When an appeal was finally filed along with a condonation of delay application, the Commissioner rejected it solely on the ground of being time-barred. BSNL argued that it was under a genuine belief that no appeal was necessary, citing a judgment recognizing the High Court's jurisdiction to test the validity of the original order even when the limitation period is fixed. However, the Court noted that the delay in this case was significant, and the reasons provided were not satisfactory. The period of limitation for filing appeals under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 is three months, extendable by a further three months on sufficient cause. Despite acknowledging the Court's power to intervene in exceptional circumstances, the Court found no justification to do so in this case due to the unjustified delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.