2021 (7) TMI 606 - AT - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - time barred in terms of Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1944 - HELD THAT - As the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of M/S DEEP COMMUNICATION AND M/S LALLI COMMUNICATION, M/S CHIK SHACK CABLE NETWORK, M/S DJ COMMUNICATION, M/S UNITED COMMUNICATION VERSUS C.C.E S.T. LUDHIANA 2021 (3) TMI 1227 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where it was held that if we consider the time consumed by the appellants before the Hon ble High Court is to be excluded than also appeals have been filed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the time limit prescribed in statute, in that circumstances, I hold that the appeals filed by the appellants are highly time barred. The appeals are rightly dismissed as time barred by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal as time-barred by Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appellant filed appeals against the impugned order dismissing their appeals as time-barred by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The adjudication order was issued on 27.01.2017, challenged in the Hon’ble High Court through a writ petition, and finally disposed of on 28.03.2018. Subsequently, the appeals were filed on 14.08.2018, leading to their dismissal by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based on Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1944. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that the time limit for filing appeals can be extended by 30 days upon showing sufficient reason for the delay. In this instance, despite the writ petitions to the High Court, no specific date of filing was provided, and a delay of over 4 months occurred before applying for a certified copy of the order. Even after receiving the certified copy, the appeals were filed more than 15 days after. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appeals were highly time-barred, even after excluding the time spent before the High Court. The Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the dismissal of the appeals as time-barred by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, since the issue had been previously addressed by the Tribunal and no errors were found in the impugned order, the appeals were rightfully dismissed as time-barred by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appeals were ultimately dismissed by the Tribunal, following the established legal principles and precedents.