2024 (2) TMI 1135 - SCH - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - Dismissal of appeal on the ground that the appeal was delayed by thirty three days - Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 - exclusion of the period during which the matter was pending before the High Court. - HELD THAT - The appellant could have no doubt filed an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section 3A of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, for reasons best known to the appellant, it approached the High Court under the W.P. 5452/2018. However, the High Court while permitting the appellant to withdraw the said writ petition by its order dated 12.03.2018 also reserved liberty to the appellant herein to seek alternative statutory remedy available in law. Therefore, the period during which the matter was pending before the High Court, i.e. from 05.03.2018 to 12.03.2018 ought to be excluded since the High Court specifically granted liberty to the appellant herein to file the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The appellant filed the appeal on 11.04.2018. If the period during which the matter was pending before the High Court, i.e. 05.03.2018 to 12.03.2018, is excluded then the appellant would have the benefit of the proviso to sub-section 3A of Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994. No doubt the said appeal has not been filed within the main provision but the proviso extends the period of limitation by one month. In the instant case, the appeal was filed on 11.04.2018 within a period of one month from 12.03.2018, which is the order of the High Court. The interest of justice would be subserved in this case if, having regard to the proviso to sub-section 3A of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. In the above circumstances, it is condoned. The impugned orders of the High Court, the Tribunal and the Appellate Commissioner are set aside - Matter restored on the file of the Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The case involves the dismissal of a writ petition by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, subsequent appeals before various authorities, and the issue of delay in filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Judgment Summary:

Dismissal of Writ Petition and Subsequent Appeals:
The appellant's claims for refund were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to a series of appeals and petitions. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, prompting the appellant to appeal further to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Contentions and Arguments:
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned based on the provisions of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that the delay was due to the liberty granted by the High Court to explore alternative remedies, and thus, the delay should be excused.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Supreme Court considered the timeline of events and found that the appellant had a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The Court noted that the High Court's order granting liberty to seek alternative statutory remedies should be taken into account. As the appeal was filed within the extended period allowed by the proviso to Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, the Court decided to condone the delay.

Final Decision:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court, Tribunal, and the Appellate Commissioner. The Court restored the appeal to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Bhopal for consideration on its merits. The Court emphasized expeditious disposal of the appeal and concluded the case accordingly.