2017 (10) TMI 214 - AT - Service Tax

Renting of Immovable Property Service - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - whether the dismissal of the appeals by the lower appellate authorities is legally correct or otherwise? - Held that - in terms of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the appeal is required to be filed within two months from the date of the impugned order which was appealed against. Further period of 30 days for filing the appeal is allowed wide the proviso to Section 85(3A) - the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed in these cases only after 178 days (in respect of appeal No. ST/30571/2017) and 3 years (in respect of appeal No. ST/30640/2017) - appeal was rightly dismissed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over tax liability for Renting of Immovable Property Services provided by a Municipal Corporation.
2. Appeal against dismissal of appeals by lower appellate authorities due to late filing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispute over tax liability for Renting of Immovable Property Services provided by a Municipal Corporation
The case involved a Municipal Corporation facing tax liability for services provided, specifically Renting of Immovable Property Services. The Department initiated proceedings through show cause notices, leading to adjudication orders confirming substantial tax liabilities, interest, and penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. Appeals were filed against these orders but were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing late filing beyond the statutory period. The core issue revolved around the correctness of the dismissal of the appeals by the lower appellate authorities.

Issue 2: Appeal against dismissal of appeals due to late filing
The Tribunal referred to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which mandates filing appeals within two months from the date of the impugned order, with an additional 30-day grace period. In this case, the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) were significantly delayed, filed after 178 days and 3 ½ years, respectively. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) must adhere to statutory timelines and lacks the authority to entertain appeals filed beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the dismissals by the lower appellate authorities were upheld, citing non-compliance with statutory provisions of Section 85 and Section 35F(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found no legal impropriety in the decisions taken by the lower authorities and dismissed the appeals accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeals by the lower appellate authorities due to late filing, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory timelines in filing appeals. The case highlights the significance of adhering to procedural requirements and statutory provisions in tax matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals filed by the Municipal Corporation.