2018 (10) TMI 1477 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Appeal being filed beyond a period of 90 days - Held that - The Appeal in hand was filed on 15.03.2013 which is apparently delayed by more than 2 years. Except their own letter of 2012 and a subsequent letter of 2013, there is nothing on part of the appellant as a reasonable justification for this delay - All those letters cannot be denied as an afterthought strategy to overcome the issue of limitation. Otherwise also, as per Section 37C, it being a statutory provision, the Commissioner(Appeals) has no authority to go beyond the provision. The word shall used therein makes a mandate for Commissioner(Appeal) to not condone the delay of even one day beyond the period of 60 days 30 days. His discretion being available for the said 30 days only, as a result, there is no apparent infirmity in the Order. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation - filed beyond 90 days.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the Order of Commissioner(Appeals) dated 06.02.2015, where the appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The Show Cause Notice was issued on 23.02.2006, raising a demand for service tax. The original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand on 31.01.2011. The appellant filed the appeal in 2013, which was dismissed for being beyond the 90-day limit. The absence of the appellant during the hearing was noted, and the Department argued that the Commissioner(Appeals) had no authority to condone the delay beyond the stipulated period. The Order-in-Original was dispatched promptly after issuance, and despite the appellant's denial of receipt, they failed to provide evidence to rebut the dispatch. The appellant filed the appeal on 15.03.2013, over two years after the decision, with insufficient justification for the delay. The Commissioner(Appeals) was bound by the statutory provision under Section 37C, which mandated no condonation of delay beyond the specified period. The judgment relied on the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. C.C.E., Jamshedpur 2008, emphasizing the limited scope for condonation of delay by appellate authorities. The judgment concluded that there was no merit in the appeal, and it was accordingly dismissed.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, focusing on the grounds for dismissal based on the limitation period, the lack of justification for the delay, and the legal provisions governing the condonation of delay by appellate authorities.