2010 (6) TMI 279 - AT - Service Tax

Delay in filing appeal - 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 - authority has observed that he does not have powers and jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days Held that - no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.

Summary

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

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved the issue of a delay of around six months in filing the appeal, which was attributed to a delay in communication of the order by the branch office to the head office. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal due to a delay of 11 months and 15 days, stating that he lacked the power to condone delays beyond 90 days. This decision was based on legal precedents, including a ruling by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M.R. Tobacco (P.) Ltd. v. UOI, which established that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone delays beyond 30 days from the expiry of the filing period. The judgment also cited the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Navinon Ltd. v. UOI, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) office is not a court and is bound by the statutory limitations set by the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additionally, the judgment referred to a ruling by the Hon'ble Tribunal in Modern Syntex (I.) Ltd. v. CCE Jaipur, which held that the lower appellate authority had no authority to condone delays exceeding 30 days as prescribed under the Central Excise Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to interfere in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, upholding the rejection of the appeal due to the established legal principles. The appeal was consequently rejected, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.