9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 650 - HC - Service TaxPeriod of limitation for filing of appeal before Commissioner of Excise (Appeals) - reduction of period from 3 months to 2 months by Finance Bill, 2012 - Held that - The materials available on record clearly show that the order passed by the original authority was on 27.03.2012. The Amendment came into force on 28.05.2012. Therefore, the petitioner is justified in its contention that the appeal should have been taken up on file in accordance with the regulations in force prior to 28.05.2012. In case the time limit prescribed for filing an appeal i.e. three months is taken into account, it cannot be said that the appeal was barred by limitation. - the first respondent was not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. - The first respondent is directed to register the appeal, if the same is otherwise in order and decide it on merits and as per law. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge of appeal dismissal based on limitation period calculation. Analysis: The petitioner contested the dismissal of their appeal on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the period for filing the appeal should be calculated from the date of the original order, not the date of appeal submission. Prior to 28.05.2012, three months were allowed for filing an appeal, with an additional grace period of three months for delay condonation. However, post the Finance Bill, 2012, the appeal period was reduced to two months and the grace period to one month. The first respondent rejected the appeal as it was filed after the new amendment, deeming it beyond the three-month limit. The court noted that the original order was issued on 27.03.2012, before the amendment on 28.05.2012, indicating that the appeal should have followed the regulations in place before the change. Considering the three-month limit for filing an appeal, the court held that the appeal was not time-barred, criticizing the first respondent's decision to reject it on limitation grounds. The court set aside the impugned order of 24.07.2013 concerning the petitioner and directed the first respondent to register the appeal for further consideration on its merits and in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed in favor of the petitioner without any costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
