2023 (8) TMI 794 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay or not - power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months as provided under Section 85 (3) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - Admittedly the impugned order dated 29.02.2012 received on 06.03.2012 and appeal was required to be filed on or before 05.06.2012 and if sufficient reasons preventing the appellant from filing the appeal are given and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is satisfied with those reasons then the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has power to condone the delay upto maximum period of three months whereas in the present case, the appeal was filed on 29.05.2014 after the delay of more than one and half years. This issue has been considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court after discussing the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay and held that Plea that , because of lack of experience in business there was delay, is not a adequate reason. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal of appellant dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are delay in filing the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone such delay.

Issue 1: Delay in Filing the Appeal

The appellant had leased out immovable property and collected Bus Adda/Stand fees without registering with the department, paying service tax, or filing ST-3 returns. The department found that the appellant evaded service tax and issued a show cause notice for recovery. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant filed an appeal with a condonation of delay application, citing a belief that a similar appeal decision would apply to them. The Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to filing after the prescribed period.

Issue 2: Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to Condone Delay

The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional, seeking condonation in the interest of justice. The Ld. DR contended that the delay exceeded the condonable period. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's ruling on sufficient cause for delay and upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the significant delay beyond the condonable period.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chandigarh addressed the issues of delay in filing the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Commissioner (Appeals)' power to condone such delay. The appellant's failure to file timely, despite reasons given, led to the dismissal of the appeal, following the Supreme Court's precedent on sufficient cause for delay.