2025 (3) TMI 8 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal holding the appeal to be time-barred in terms of proviso to (3A) of Section 85 of Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - The appellant has not come present to contest the findings nor any evidence contrary to these findings has been brought on records. The grounds of appeal are silent to this effect. Resultantly there are no reason to differ from the findings as arrived by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Hon ble Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT has already held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to condone the delay only up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order in original. In the present case the order in original dated 23.02.2015 was duly dispatched by the department to the appellant on the date of order itself and the same address on which the show cause notice was served to the appellant which was duly received. The presumption of service is very much attached to the said dispatch. Though the presumption was rebuttable but the appellant has not produced any document on record to rebut the same. He has not even appeared in person to make any submission in rebuttal thereof. There are no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is hereby upheld - appeal dismissed.

Summary

The present appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal No. 308/2019 dated 28.03.2019, which dismissed the appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 44/2015 dated 23.02.2015 as time-barred under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant did not appear, and a written request for adjournment was received. The Departmental Representative argued that the appeal was filed after a significant delay of 3 years, 9 months, and 15 days, which was unexplained. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the time-barred dismissal based on technical grounds, emphasizing the abnormal delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the impugned order rejected the appeal solely on limitation grounds without delving into the merits of the case.The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Order-in-Original was dispatched promptly to the appellant and that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to contest this finding. The Tribunal cited the decision in Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)], which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone delays up to 30 days after the expiry of 60 days from the date of receipt of the original order. As the appellant did not rebut the presumption of service or provide any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.The core legal issue considered by the Tribunal was whether the appeal was time-barred under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal analyzed the delay in filing the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, and the lack of evidence or arguments presented by the appellant to contest the time-barred dismissal. The Tribunal relied on the legal framework established in Singh Enterprises and concluded that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to the unexplained delay in filing.The significant holding of the Tribunal was the affirmation of the time-barred dismissal of the appeal based on the abnormal delay in filing and the failure of the appellant to provide any rebuttal evidence. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of timely filing appeals within the statutory limitations.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspect of the case, specifically the time-barred nature of the appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal's analysis centered on the lack of justification for the delay in filing, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, and the appellant's failure to present any counterarguments or evidence. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on the established legal framework and precedents, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines in filing appeals.