9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 58 - AT - Service TaxMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - condonation of delay - appeal was filed on 04.06.2013 i.e. after a period of 3 months and 20 days, whereas the normal period of filing the appeal is 2 months and he has powers to condone further delay of one month only - HELD THAT - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act stand decided by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that because of lack of experience in business there was delay, is not a adequate reason, delay not condoned. Inasmuch as admittedly there was a delay of one month and 20 days in filing the appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the same as barred by limitation - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeal beyond prescribed period. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD dealt with the issue of whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as it was filed after the stipulated time frame of 2 months, with the Commissioner having the power to condone a further delay of only one month. In this case, the appeal was filed after a delay of one month and 20 days, which the Commissioner (Appeals) deemed beyond his power to condone. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute regarding the dates of receipt of the Order-In-Original and the filing of the appeal. The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, where it was established that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed period. Given the delay of one month and 20 days in filing the appeal in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the jurisdictional limits of the Commissioner (Appeals) in condoning delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory period. The decision reinforced the principle that such delays could not be condoned beyond the limits prescribed by law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a previous ruling. The Tribunal's decision in this case was based on the specific facts regarding the timing of the appeal filing and the established legal precedent.
|
