9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 626 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay in filing of appeal - Levy of service tax - miscellaneous expenses paid by the service recipient in connection with security service provided by the appellant - time limitation - HELD THAT - From the finding of the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), there is no dispute that the appellant have filed the appeal after 90 days. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has statutory power to Condon the delay maximum 30 days after the normal period of filing appeal i.e. 60 days. In the present case the appellant have admittedly filed the appeal much after the 90 days. Therefore, the commissioner has no power to condone the delay more than 30 days. Accordingly, appeal was dismissed on time bar. The statutory period of 90 days cannot be condoned by any authority even by this Tribunal as held by SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , which was relied by the Learned Commissioner in the above finding. The dismissal of the appeal on being time bar is proper and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of miscellaneous expenses paid by the service recipient in connection with security services to Service Tax. 2. Timeliness of the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability of Miscellaneous Expenses to Service Tax: The primary issue in this case was whether various miscellaneous expenses paid by the service recipient in connection with security services provided by the appellant were liable to Service Tax. The appellant's Chartered Accountant, Ms. Neeta Ladha, argued on the merits of the case, suggesting that the appellant had a strong prima facie case. However, the tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the procedural time-bar. 2. Timeliness of the Appeal Filed Before the Commissioner (Appeals): The crux of the judgment revolved around the procedural aspect of whether the appeal was filed within the permissible time frame. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred. The relevant legal provisions under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, and Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were cited to establish the procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Legal Provisions and Findings: - Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994: It stipulates that an appeal must be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order. The Commissioner (Appeals) may allow an appeal to be presented within a further period of three months if prevented by sufficient cause. - Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944: It mandates that an appeal should be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the decision or order. The Commissioner (Appeals) can condone a delay of up to 30 days beyond the 60-day period if sufficient cause is shown. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellant filed the appeal after the 90-day period, which exceeded the statutory limit for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced several judicial precedents, including: - D.R. Industries Limited v. Union of India (2008): This case established that the delay beyond 90 days could only be condoned through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in extraordinary circumstances. - Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of C. Ex. Jamshedpur (2008): The Supreme Court held that there was no power to condone the delay after the 30-day period beyond the initial 60 days. - Office of the Chief Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012): This case reinforced that the law of limitation binds everyone, including the government. Conclusion: The tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the appeal was rightly dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred. The statutory period of 90 days for filing an appeal could not be condoned by any authority, including the tribunal. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal was deemed proper and legal, without any infirmity. Final Order: The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the order-in-appeal, and pronounced the decision in the open court on 14.06.2024.
|
