2023 (12) TMI 1212 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed as it was not filed within the time stipulated in section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT - In the present case, the appeal was presented before the Commissioner (Appeals) even beyond the extended period of one month after the expiry of the normal period of limitation of two months. In SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court observed The Supreme Court held that the period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is limited by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act and the position is crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry period of sixty days. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal dismissed due to delay in filing as per Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 85 (3A)
The judgment clarifies that an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the order, with a provision for the Commissioner to condone a further one-month delay in specific circumstances.

Issue 2: Case Specifics
The appellant filed an appeal beyond the stipulated time period, leading to its dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the delay exceeded the permissible limit for condonation.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents
The appellant cited a Supreme Court decision to support the condonation of delay, while the department relied on a different Supreme Court ruling emphasizing the strict interpretation of time limits without the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion:
Considering the specific provisions of Section 85 (3A) and the Supreme Court's ruling in Singh Enterprises, the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed justified in dismissing the appeal due to the delay exceeding the allowed period for condonation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.