2022 (8) TMI 929 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - condonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusionary part of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will lie with the Supreme Court - quantum of tax involved is below the threshold limit prescribed in the circular dated 22.08.2019 - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact, that the substantial period of the delay falls within the time-frame that Covid restrictions had kicked in i.e., since March 2020, we are inclined to condone the delay. We need not delve upon the first objection raised by Ms Lakshmikumaran i.e., that the appeals, if at all, ought to have been filed before the Supreme Court. Since the instructions/circulars dated 17.08.2011, 26.12.2014 and 22.08.2019 are binding on the appellant/revenue and the revenue involved in each of the appeals is, admittedly, below the prescribed threshold, these appeals will have to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against a common order dated 01.08.2018 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in three separate appeals.
2. Preliminary objections raised by the respondent regarding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the quantum of tax involved, and the delay in filing the appeals.
3. Explanation provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeals.
4. Consideration of the Covid-19 pandemic impact on the delay.
5. Acceptance of the preliminary objection regarding the revenue impact being below the prescribed threshold limit.
6. Dismissal of the appeals based on the binding circulars and instructions regarding the threshold limit.
7. Order for the expedited remittance of the refund claimed by the respondent along with statutory interest.
8. Closure of pending applications.

Analysis:
The High Court heard appeals against a common order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in three separate appeals. The respondent raised three preliminary issues, including the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the quantum of tax involved, and the delay in filing the appeals. The appellant sought to explain the delay by referring to orders passed by the Supreme Court. The Court considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the delay and decided to condone it due to the significant period falling within the pandemic timeframe. The objection regarding the revenue impact being below the prescribed threshold limit was accepted, as the circulars were deemed binding on the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed based on this ground, and the Court ordered the expedited remittance of the refund claimed by the respondent along with statutory interest. Pending applications were directed to be closed as a result of the judgment.