9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 563 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) - time limitation as per sub-section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - On a conjoint reading of sub-section (3) of Section 85 and the proviso appended thereto, it transpires that beyond the period of 6 months, the Commissioner(Appeals) is not empowered under the statute to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Admittedly, in this case, since there was delay of 210 days in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals), in our considered opinion, he has correctly rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Since the Tribunal is created and governed under the statute, the time limit prescribed in the statute cannot also be relaxed by it. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has held that time limit prescribed in the statute should strictly be adhered to and the authorities created under it are not competent to interpret the provisions in a different manner. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal; Limitation period for filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals).
Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal: The judgment addresses a delay of 8 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The reason for the delay was explained in a miscellaneous application and was deemed reasonable. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, condoned the delay. Since the issue was narrow and both sides consented, the appeal was taken up for immediate hearing and disposal. Limitation period for filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals): The impugned order by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal due to a delay of 210 days in filing the appeal. The judgment refers to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandates that an appeal must be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. The first proviso allows the Commissioner(Appeals) to condone the delay up to an additional three months. However, beyond a total of six months, the Commissioner(Appeals) lacks the statutory power to condone the delay. In this case, with a delay of 210 days, the rejection of the appeal on the ground of limitation was deemed correct. The Tribunal emphasized that it cannot relax the time limit prescribed by the statute, citing the Supreme Court's stance that statutory time limits must be strictly adhered to without interpretation deviations. In conclusion, the judgment found no flaw in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) and dismissed the appellant's appeal based on the limitation grounds. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court on 01/11/2021.
|
