9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alf yearly periods April 2015 to September 2015 and October 2015 to March 2016 for the financial years 2015 16. Whereby they have not paid the Service Tax of Rs.12,68,750/- on the taxable value of services. The OIO has not accepted the payments made and shown in the challans towards duty as no documentary proof was shown that the amounts were paid as duty. The same was hence not adjusted towards the duty demanded. This being so the amounts paid are treated as pre-deposit and satisfy Section 83 of FA read with section 35F of the CEA. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There is a lack of clarity on the dates involved with proof of the same. When an issue is being determined on the basis of limitation it is necessary for the concerned Authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay of 28 days on the ground that the Order in Original was received by the appellant only on 16/11/2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) after noting that the delay is beyond the condonable period and also that the appellant has not pre-deposited the statutory amount for filing the appeal, rejected the appeal without going into the merits of the case. Hence the appellant has filed the present appeal before this forum. 3. Shri M. Amar, Ld. Chartered Accountant appeared for the appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Authorized Representative appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The learned Chartered Accountant (CA) stated that the appellant, is registered under service tax for the entertainment industry but failed to file ST 3 returns for FY 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed that their appeal may be allowed. 3.2 The Ld. AR has taken me through the impugned order and stated that there is a delay in filing of the appeal before the Commissioner Appeal which is beyond the powers of condonation as per the Statute. Further the appellant has not paid the pre-deposit as required under section 35 F of the Central Excise Act 1944 (CEA) read with section 83 of the Finance Act 1994 (FA). The amount of pre-deposit now claimed to be paid by the appellant was actually paid during the period April 2015 to August 2026 as per their declaration given along with the Appeal Memorandum. The payment is towards regular duty and pre-dates the SCN dated 22/04/2021. This is not deposit as contemplated under the section and hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been a delay of 28 days beyond the statutory limit. I find that there is a lack of clarity on the dates involved with proof of the same. When an issue is being determined on the basis of limitation it is necessary for the concerned Authority to set out the dates along with the basis for adopting the same and the specific provision of law involved, clearly. A similar clarity with proof was required to be submitted by the appellant in the Appeal Memorandum so that the matter could have been decided. I find that the same is lacking by both the parties. The matter hence needs to be remanded for a decision afresh. In case the time limit is within the condonable period the Ld. Commissioner Appeal is required to take a judicious decision on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
