2025 (3) TMI 1138 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissal of appeal on the ground of being time barred - scope of definition of service as per Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - The order in original dated 04.09.2020 was apparently and admittedly received by the appellant on 10.09.2020. Hence the appeal would have been filed by 10.11.2020 (within two months of receiving order) by 10.12.2020 (within further period of 30 days of proviso to Section 85). But the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 22.08.2022. No doubt Hon ble Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition No. 3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022 had ordered exclusion of time i.e. from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) while calculating the period of limitation. But from the dates as mentioned above it is clear that appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) on 28.02.2022 was still beyond the said excluded period as it was filed beyond a period of six months of expiry of said period. Hence the appeal was filed even beyond the condonable period. Commissioner (Appeals) statutorily couldn t condone the delay of over a month beyond two months from date of receipt of order-in-original - It has held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT it is held that there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. There is an apparent delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the services provided by the appellant fall under the definition of "service" as per Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, and are thus taxable.
• Whether the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred was appropriate, considering the statutory time limits for filing an appeal and the exclusion period granted by the Supreme Court due to the pandemic.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Taxability of Services Provided

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Finance Act, 1994, particularly Section 65B(44), defines "service" and outlines the taxability of such services. Section 66D lists services that are exempt from service tax.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the appellant's admission that they provided maintenance and repair services. These services were not covered under the negative list of Section 66D, making them taxable under the Finance Act, 1994.
• Key evidence and findings: Financial records indicated that the appellant received Rs. 82,05,608/- for services rendered between 2012-2017, with TDS deducted by the service recipients. The appellant failed to file the required ST-3 returns, indicating non-compliance with tax obligations.
• Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant's services were taxable and that the appellant was liable for service tax, as per the admissions in the appeal memo and the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal did not find any arguments from the appellant challenging the taxability of the services, as the appellant did not appear or submit any response.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the services provided by the appellant were taxable and that the appellant failed to fulfill their tax obligations.

2. Timeliness of the Appeal

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, stipulates a two-month period for filing an appeal, with a possible extension of one month if sufficient cause is shown. The Supreme Court's suo moto writ petition provided an exclusion period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the pandemic.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed on 22.08.2022, well beyond the permissible period even after accounting for the exclusion period. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises, which clarified that statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed limits.
• Key evidence and findings: The appellant received the order-in-original on 10.09.2020, making the deadline for filing the appeal 10.12.2020, including the extension period. The appeal was filed significantly later, on 22.08.2022.
• Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory time limits and the exclusion period to determine that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the jurisdiction to condone such delay.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal found no valid arguments from the appellant justifying the delay, as no submissions were made.
• Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Tribunal reiterated the Supreme Court's position in Singh Enterprises, emphasizing that statutory authorities have no power to condone delays beyond the specified period.
• Core principles established: The Tribunal reinforced the principle that statutory time limits for filing appeals are strict and cannot be extended beyond the provisions of the statute, even with the exclusion period granted by higher courts.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Tribunal determined that the services provided by the appellant were taxable and that the appeal was rightly dismissed as time-barred due to the appellant's failure to comply with statutory deadlines.