2022 (12) TMI 467 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay - sufficient reasons for not filing the appeal within prescribed time limit is shown or not - HELD THAT - Reliance placed on the decision in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. Thus there are no merits in the appeal filed by the appellant - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and also on merits following the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal dismissed as time-barred by Commissioner (Appeals) - Condonation of delay beyond statutory limit - Applicability of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Dismissal for non-prosecution.

Analysis:

1. Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur, dismissing the appeal as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which prescribes a two-month time limit for filing an appeal, extendable by one month for sufficient reasons. The Commissioner emphasized that the power to condone delay is limited by law, citing judicial precedents such as Maruthi Industrial Carbohydrates Ltd and Delta Impex cases, which restrict the extension of the time limit beyond what is statutorily allowed.

2. Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982:
The matter was listed for hearing but was adjourned due to the absence of the counsel without any request for adjournment. Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 empowers the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for default if the appellant fails to appear without a valid reason. The Tribunal has the discretion to either dismiss the appeal or decide it on merits, subject to the appellant providing sufficient cause for their non-appearance.

3. Precedents and Legal Decisions:
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on legal decisions such as Singh Enterprises, Abhuyuday Co-operative Bank Ltd., Flemingo (Duty Free Shop) Pvt. Ltd., Parsi Dairy Farm, Raj Chemicals, Diamond Construction, and Bilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd. to support the dismissal of the appeal due to time-barred filing. The Tribunal, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises case, dismissed the appeal under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for non-prosecution and on merits.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to being time-barred as per the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and in accordance with Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing the limited power to condone delay beyond the statutory limits. The dismissal was also based on the absence of the appellant's counsel during the hearing, leading to non-prosecution of the appeal.