2010 (6) TMI 263 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) - Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of time barred inasmuch as there was a delay of 11 months and 15 days in filing the appeal before him. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that he had no power and jurisdiction to condone delay beyond period of 90 days. Held that - there was no reason to interfere impugned order.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay beyond a specified period

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, comprising Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and B.S.V. Murthy, addressed the issue of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the power of the Commissioner to condone such delay. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 11 months and 15 days in filing the appeal, beyond the prescribed period. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited various legal decisions, including one from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which held that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the authority to condone the delay beyond a specified period, typically 30 days. The Tribunal noted that the law is settled on this issue, as evidenced by decisions from different courts and tribunals. The Tribunal, therefore, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appellant's appeal, concluding that there were no grounds to interfere in the impugned order. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to internal communication issues within the appellant's organization, which the Tribunal acknowledged but ultimately did not find sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals) in extending the period for filing appeals beyond what is expressly provided for in the law. The appeal, along with the stay petition, was disposed of accordingly.