9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25/05/2011 confirming service tax demand of Rs. 1,72,268/- and Rs. 4,90,454/-. Various penalties were also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed before the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 17/11/2014 dismissed both the appeals as time barred in terms of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) occurred mainly due to the reason that the appellant handed over the papers to Advocate Shri S.K. Sharma who did not follow up the case in time. Learned Counsel for the appellant strongly pleaded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that when the statute prescribes particular period of limitation, condonation is not possible beyond such period. The learned AR submits that there are many other decisions in these lines and in the absence of any provision to condone the delay beyond one month, there is no authority for such condonation. 4. Heard both the sides. The short point for decision is whether the Tribunal can direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to admit an appeal with the delay of 800 days. The legal provision in this regard is very clear and there is no powers conferred on any authority to extend the appeal period provided by the Finance Act 1994, with respect to appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted some case la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 260 (P&H) was dealing with delay of 132 days in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Kaushal Construction Co. vs. CCE reported in 2015 (40) S.T.R. 38 (P&H) was dealing with delay of 262 days in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal in the case of Dhiman Industries (Regd.) vs. CCE, Jallandhar reported in 2004 (62) R.L.T. 520 (CESTAT - Del.) held that a delay of 12 days can be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) on account of misplacement of case papers by the Advocate. In Indam Recycling Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Cochin reported in 2009 (246) E.L.T. 687 (Tri. - Bang.), the Tribunal held that delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal caused due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv Sahil Construction Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2479-HC-JHARKHAND-ST- held that there is no power to condone delay beyond condonable period under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Flamingo (Duty Free Shop) Pvt. Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-2436-HC-MUM-CUS held on similar lines in respect of similar provisions under Customs Act, 1962. The same High Court in Mr. Xavier Thomas - 2015-TIOL-1762-HC-MUM-ST - held that Commissioner (Appeals) cannot exercise powers beyond condonable period of limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Hon'ble High Court also observed that their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India do not enable them to override any statutory provision nor they can pass an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
