9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18.06.2012. On scrutiny of the said refund claim, the original authority had sanctioned an amount of Rs.32,38,600/- as eligible refund and had rejected the claim of the appellant for Rs.34,45,272/-, by issue of an Order-in- Original dated 30.11.2016. In rejection of the said claim, the original authority had mentioned the main grounds for rejection as (i) the address mentioned in some of the invoices was different from the address registered in their ST-2 certificate and a copy of one of the invoice was not produced before the original authority, and (ii) invoices were issued in the name of their own unit situated at Balewadi, Kalyani Nagar address and not in the name of the registered address. Being aggrieved with the original authority's order dated 30.11.2016, the appellant had filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals-II), who after examining the factual matrix of the case had rejected the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of time limit without examining the merits of the case. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals-II) dated 24.10.2019, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 From the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have filed an appeal on 10.02.2017 cannot be accepted. This office came to know about the said issue for the first time vide their letter dated 29.04.2019 enclosing therein the copy of the appeal memorandum. Thus, the appellant cannot contend the appeal was filed before the wrong forum and that would save limitation. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay of almost two and half years in seeking appellate body before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. xx xx xx xx xx 13. This office, being creature of the statute cannot travel beyond the jurisdiction of the statute, and cannot condone the delay beyond the time limit prescribed for filing of appeal under any circumstances. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, I find that this appeal is liable for rejection on account of delay in filing the present appeal in terms of Section 85 (3A) of the Act as applicable to Service Tax matters, which I hold so. 14. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order: ORDER I reject the Appeal No. 35/2019-20 filed by the Appellant on limitation, in terms of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994." 3.3 Plain re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lence", emphasizing the idea of "Service". It symbolizes the change in mindset within the Government, from administration and control to service and enablement. The overarching objective of Sevottam is to continuously improve the quality of public service delivery in the country. Sevottam framework was created by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Government of India in 2005, after study of the best international practices such as the Charter Mark of United Kingdom and the Malcolm model of United States of America. It is a framework for bringing continuous improvements in service delivery by government organizations. Thus, I find that Sevottam is an administrative measure to improve the quality of public services in India. 4.4 Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) with its large number of field offices is one of the organization which has a large public interface and therefore, it had been selected for implementation of Sevottam for achieving excellence in service delivery. The Customs and Central Excise department (as a service provider) interacts with the large number of clients such as Importers/exporters/ manufacturers/service providers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the "Central Inward & Acknowledgement Register (SQM 3.2.1.1.). As the above two affidavits filed by both sides are supportive to each other's stand, I could only conclude from the above that there is a system of receiving all the letters, returns, appeal papers etc. in terms of the Standard Quantity Manual that all written communications submitted by a sender before the Sevottam section would be acknowledged by the department. It is not the case of the department, that the appellant had fabricated the seal of the office of the Commissionerate to be affixed in their copy of the appeal, without filing the appeal papers before the Sevottam section. I would rather find that any tax payer regularly filing various declarations, returns would also file the refund claim with the departmental authorities properly, and he would not avoid filing the appeal paper that too for claiming refund of Cenvat credit which was rejected by the original authority, as it does not help his case. The remote possibility could be that such appeal papers prepared by the appellant, were forgotten to be filed with the department or were lost in transit. On the other hand, it is also possible that after filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... face value as it is, since these have not been proved otherwise, and without taking into account the affidavits filed by both sides, I find that if the receipt of appeal memorandum submitted on 10.02.2017 having acknowledgement of seal of the Commissionerate is taken into account, then from the date of receipt of the Order-in- Original by the appellant on 14.12.2016, within two months of the receipt of the original order they had preferred the appeal before the office of the Commissioner (Appeals-II), through the Service Tax Sevottam Cell. I further find that the appellant had fulfilled the requirement of submitting appeal memorandum by submitting the papers in terms of Section 85(3A) ibid; however, it could be that subsequently these appeal papers have not reached the office of the Commissioner (Appeals-II). However, if it is treated that the appellant had filed the appeal memorandum for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals), then the delay in filing such appeal need to examined for consideration of condonation of delay in such belated filing. Further, there are sufficient grounds on the merits of the case as submitted by the appellant in the appeal before this Tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
