2021 (3) TMI 666 - AT - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - refund claim - time limitation - HELD THAT - The refund claim of the appellant was sanctioned initially. Para 5 thereof specifically records that the submissions made by the claimant have been considered by the original adjudicating authority thereby proving that the appellant was given the due opportunity of hearing and the said order is not an ex-party order. The perusal of order dated 30.01.2018 in furtherance of the review proceeding also is observed to not to be an ex-party order, as contrary to the submissions of the appellant. The arguments of appellant that the notice is shown to have been received by Manoj Srivastava whereas the owner of appellant is Mr. Aslam has no further relevance to extend any benefit to the appellant. Condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT - Keeping in view that there is a statutory mandate upon Commissioner (Appeals) to not to hear the appeal, which is filed beyond the period of 60 days extendable to another 30 days if sufficient cause for delay is shown. There are no infirmity in the order when the impugned delay of one month and 20 days is denied to be condoned for no sufficient cause - reliance correctly placed in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT . Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the dismissal order dated 31st August, 2018, claiming lack of knowledge about the original order dated 25 March, 2014, sanctioning a service tax refund. The appellant argued that they were not informed about the review petition or subsequent order dated 30.01.2018, which was passed ex-parte. The appellant mentioned filing an RTI application to obtain a copy of the order, which was rejected, leading to a delay in filing the appeal.

The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings and participated in the original adjudication and review proceedings. Emphasis was placed on the appellant's presence during the review process and the opportunities given for a personal hearing. The Department argued that the RTI application was filed as a delaying tactic, and the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the appeal based on the grounds of limitation.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had been given opportunities for hearings during both the original adjudication and review proceedings, as evidenced by specific paragraphs in the orders. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claim of not being heard prior to the order dated 30.01.2018 was false. It was concluded that there was no valid reason for the appellant to claim ignorance of the order, and the RTI application seemed to be a tactic to delay proceedings.

The Tribunal referred to a relevant case law to emphasize the statutory mandate regarding the time limit for filing appeals and the authority's power to condone delays. Citing the case law, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the appeal based on the limitation period. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the order under challenge.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of limitation, finding no valid reason to condone the delay in filing. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely appeals and the limitations set by statute, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.