2019 (11) TMI 1332 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 490 days in filing appeal - time limitation - appeal rejected on the ground that the appeal was preferred before him with a delay of 490 days - sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of such statutory provisions, it transpires that the statute in clear and ambiguous terms has prescribed the time limit, within which the appeal has to be preferred and the Commissioner (Appeals) was also empowered to condone the delay within the prescribed condonable period. In this case, since the appeal was preferred by the appellant beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of the adjudication order, which is an admitted fact on record, the appeal rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) is proper and justified and cannot be interfered with at this juncture. With regard to filing of appeal and entertaining the same by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has held that appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period of three months cannot be entertained by the appellate authority. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Appeal filed with a delay of 490 days before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing an appeal.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the time limit for filing an appeal.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by Revenue seeking rectification of a mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the order was not based on any application filed by the appellant, and since there was no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the application was dismissed.

2. The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of a delay of 490 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the statutory provision of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which does not empower him to condone a delay beyond three months from the date of receipt of the adjudication order. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) as the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period.

3. The Tribunal referred to the case law of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur, where it was held that appeals filed beyond the prescribed period cannot be entertained. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellate authority, including the Commissioner (Appeals), has limited power to condone delays as per the statutory provisions, and the appeal must be filed within the specified time frame.

4. The Tribunal clarified that the statutory provisions clearly set the time limit for filing appeals and empower the appellate authority to condone delays within the specified period. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for filing appeals and the limited scope for condonation of delays beyond the statutory limit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeal filed with a delay of 490 days, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limited authority of appellate bodies to condone delays as per the law.