2022 (3) TMI 51 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - time limitation - appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed beyond the normal period of limitation of two months and also beyond the one month condonable delay provided in section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - the only plea in the appeal is that the appellant was in Meerut jail for 796 days from 23.5.2017 to 30.5.2019 - HELD THAT - There is no reason why the appellant could not have filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) while in prison. If one cannot seek any legal remedy because one is in jail, no bail application can ever be filed. In fact, the appellant himself had filed for and was granted bail by the High Court. The facts that the appellant was the only son and that he was afraid for safety of his parents also do not explain why an appeal was not filed within time. If the appellant was involved in a criminal case and had to spend time in jail, he would have had access to lawyers. To say that he was not aware that there was a legal remedy against the order of the Assistant Commissioner is unbelievable. At any rate, neither Section 35 of the Central Excise Act nor Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 provide for condonation of delay in filing appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond one month. The impugned order is correct and proper in dismissing the appeal for delay and it calls for no interference - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal dismissed on grounds of limitation without considering merits.
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appellant's reasons for delay in filing appeal.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding limitation for filing appeals.
5. Application of the principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.
6. Comparison with previous judgments on condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation without delving into the merits of the case. The appellant filed the appeal beyond the normal two-month limitation period, seeking condonation of the delay due to being in jail and unaware of the legal remedy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. The appellant's plea for condonation of delay was not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory limitations under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act and Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. The appellant cited being in jail and fear for family safety as reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. However, the Tribunal found these reasons unsubstantiated, highlighting that being in jail does not prevent seeking legal remedies, as evidenced by the appellant's bail application and access to lawyers.

4. The Tribunal interpreted the statutory provisions under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limitation periods and the appellate authority's power to condone delays only up to 30 days beyond the initial 60-day period, excluding the application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.

5. The principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay was discussed, emphasizing that the explanation provided must be adequate and reasonable. Previous judgments were cited to illustrate that delay condonation cannot render statutory limitations meaningless.

6. The Tribunal compared the appellant's case with previous decisions, emphasizing that each case's unique circumstances determine the acceptance or rejection of delay condonation pleas. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Singh Enterprises, dismissing the appeal due to delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's strict adherence to statutory limitations and the principle of "sufficient cause" in condoning delays in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).