2018 (12) TMI 2014 - AT - Service Tax

Jurisdiction of Superintendent (Appeals) to reject the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred - HELD THAT - Superintendent (Appeals) has no power to adjudicate upon the appeal and dismiss or reject the same on the point of time bar. To reject the appeal on time bar is not a technical defect but is required to be adjudicated upon by appreciating the various submissions made by the assessee or the various factors involved in the matter. Superintendent (Appeals) lacked the jurisdiction to decide or to reject the appeal on time bar and it was for Commissioner (Appeals) to decide as to whether there was any delay in filing the appeal. In any case and in any view of the matter if the Appellate Authority would have give a hearing to the appellant before dismissal of his appeal as time barred all the above facts could have been explained to him. Having not done that the matter needs to be remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on the issue of time bar. Appellants are at liberty to place all the evidence on record to show that the appeal stands wrongly filed in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) would also verify the said fact of filing and pendency of appeal in the office of the Assistant Commissioner. If the appeal was actually filed by the appellant in the office of the Assistant Commissioner who in any case should have forwarded the same to Commissioner (Appeals) and was pending for three years in his office the time period for which the appeal was pending in the office of the Assistant Commissioner is required to be excluded from consideration for the purpose of limitation in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Conclusion - The authority to adjudicate on whether an appeal is time-barred lies with the Commissioner (Appeals) not the Superintendent (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the issue afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the Superintendent (Appeals) had the jurisdiction to reject the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred.
• Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be excused due to the appeal being inadvertently filed in the wrong office.
• Whether the time period during which the appeal was pending in the wrong office should be excluded from the limitation period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Jurisdiction of the Superintendent (Appeals) to Reject the Appeal

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the jurisdictional authority of the Superintendent (Appeals) concerning the adjudication of appeals, particularly in determining whether an appeal is time-barred.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the Superintendent (Appeals) does not possess the authority to adjudicate or dismiss an appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. Such a decision requires a comprehensive evaluation of the circumstances and submissions from the assessee, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals).
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the Superintendent (Appeals) acted beyond his jurisdiction by rejecting the appeal without proper adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals).
• Conclusions: The Superintendent (Appeals) lacked the jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of time-bar, and the matter should be addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Excusing the Delay Due to Filing in the Wrong Office

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The procedural rules governing the filing of appeals and the implications of filing errors are considered here.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the appellant's claim that the appeal was inadvertently filed in the wrong office due to the proximity of the two offices. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing to explain such circumstances.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided evidence that the appeal was mistakenly filed in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner instead of the Commissioner (Appeals).
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that the appellant should have been given an opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the filing error.
• Conclusions: The matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appellant's explanation and evidence regarding the filing error.

3. Exclusion of Time Period Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 14 of the Limitation Act allows for the exclusion of time periods during which a case was pursued in a forum lacking jurisdiction.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court suggested that if the appeal was indeed pending in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, the time during which it was pending should be excluded from the limitation period under Section 14.
• Application of Law to Facts: The Court directed that the Commissioner (Appeals) should verify the facts regarding the filing and pendency of the appeal in the wrong office.
• Conclusions: The Commissioner (Appeals) should exclude the time period during which the appeal was pending in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner from the limitation period.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Superintendent (Appeals) has no power to adjudicate upon the appeal and dismiss or reject the same on the point of time bar."
• Core Principles Established: The authority to adjudicate on whether an appeal is time-barred lies with the Commissioner (Appeals), not the Superintendent (Appeals). The appellant must be given a fair opportunity to present evidence and explanations regarding filing errors.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the issue of time-bar, considering the appellant's evidence and explanation. The time period during which the appeal was pending in the wrong office should be excluded from the limitation period.