2009 (6) TMI 413 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal filed by department Respondent raise objection that appeal by department is not maintainable - Respondent submit that the impugned orders were received by the lower authorities on 8-7-2008 while the Committee of Commissioners sat on 14-10-2008 which is beyond the period of 3 months time limit given for filing appeal under Section 86 - Language in relevant provisions of Finance Act, 1994 different from that of in Central Excise Act, 1944 - It can be seen that the provisions of Section 35E (3) of Central Excise Act, 1944 are not incorporated in Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, which would indicate the mind of the law makers that they do not wish to saddle the Committee of Commissioners to act within a time frame. The Section does not mandate that the Committee should come to conclusion within the period of 3 months given for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. - Since the wordings of provisions of Section 86 are very clear, we hold that an authorization passed by the Review Committee of Commissioners to file an appeal would be enough for the Department to file an appeal before us since it is in the public interest. - The reading of provisions of Section 35B/35E/129A of the Central Excise Act/Customs Act respectively into Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 will not be correct. - Further, in these cases, the appeal has been filed belatedly only by four to twenty three days, we condone the delay and direct the Registry to take on record the Stay petition/appeals.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, preliminary objection to the maintenance of appeals and condonation of delay, interpretation of Sections 35B(2) and 35E(1)(2)(3), applicability of time limits for filing appeals, authorization by Committee of Commissioners to file an appeal, public interest in filing appeals, condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal, ranging from four to twenty-three days, due to non-availability of the Commissioner constituting the Members of Committee of Commissioners. The Department sought condonation of delay, citing compelling official pre-occupations. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the delay exceeded the three-month time limit for filing appeals under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, referencing relevant Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 35B(2) and Section 35E(1)(2)(3) to determine the authority and time limits for filing appeals. It emphasized the necessity to consider the specific language of the statute in Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, which grants the Committee of Commissioners the power to direct the filing of appeals without a specified time frame. The judgment clarified that the provisions of Section 35B/35E/129A of other Acts should not be read into Section 86, as they differ in scope and requirements.

Concluding that the authorization by the Committee of Commissioners to file an appeal was sufficient under Section 86, the Tribunal held that such authorization served the public interest. Despite the belated filing of appeals, ranging from four to twenty-three days, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to condone the delay and directed the Registry to proceed with the Stay petitions/appeals. The applications for condonation of delay were allowed, and the matter was listed for disposal.

Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions governing the filing of appeals, the authority of the Committee of Commissioners, and the discretion of the Tribunal in condoning delays to serve the public interest in the adjudicatory process.