2021 (12) TMI 625 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay is given or not - HELD THAT - It is clear from Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 that the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal is of two months and if there is any delay caused in filing of the appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise and GST has the power to condone the delay, if the delay is not beyond the period of further one month from the expiry of the earlier period of two months, provided the Commissioner is satisfied that there is sufficient cause shown by the appellant. In the present case, the appeal was admittedly filed after expiry of total period of three months and therefore, it was well beyond the limitation period, including extended limitation period as prescribed under Section 85 and therefore, the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against levy of service tax dismissed as barred by limitation.
2. Applicability of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, levying service tax, which they appealed before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was filed after the limitation period, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. However, the Appellate Authority found that the appeal was beyond the extended limitation period and dismissed it as barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority considered Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which outlines the procedure for filing appeals in cases of service tax, interest, or penalty.

Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 specifies a two-month limitation period for filing appeals, with provision for a further one-month extension if sufficient cause for delay is shown. In this case, the appeal was filed after a total period of three months, exceeding the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal due to the delay in filing beyond the statutory limit as provided under Section 85.

The Court noted that the Appellate Authority's decision to dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation was in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court held that if the Appellate Authority's decision was upheld, it would not be permissible for the Court to consider the challenge against the original order levying service tax. Consequently, the petition was summarily dismissed with no costs awarded.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods for filing appeals, as outlined in Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case serves as a reminder that failure to comply with such timelines can result in the dismissal of appeals, depriving parties of the opportunity to challenge adverse decisions.