9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial year 2012-2013 to 2016-17 were received from Income Tax Department vide letter dated 30.08.2018. Perusal thereof showed that the appellant had provided services to various companies/firms and the TDS on the amount paid to the appellant has also been deducted by these companies/firms during the aforementioned period. However, on the perusal of the ACES system, it was noticed that the appellant had not filed the ST-3 return for the said period, despite receiving an amount of Rs. 82,05,608/- during the period 2013-2014 to 2016-2017. 3. Based on the said information, department formed an opinion that services provided by the appellant are covered under the definition of "service" as defined under Section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cooperative. No reply to show cause notice was ever filed. Even the order in original dated 04.09.2020 was passed ex-parte. From the grounds of appeal in the present appeal memo, there is a clear admission of the appellant that the appellants were providing the repairing services of the machinery till the machinery used to be in the warranty period thereafter they were engaged in providing the maintenance and repair service on chargeable basis. The amount of Rs. 82,05,608/- for the financial year 2012-2013 to 2016-2017 is also admittedly received by the appellant for providing said service. It is submitted that since the said service is taxable, the appellant was liable to deposit tax. 6. Coming to the fact that the appeal before Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months. 8. I observe that the order in original dated 04.09.2020 was apparently and admittedly received by the appellant on 10.09.2020. Hence the appeal would have been filed by 10.11.2020 (within two months of receiving order) by 10.12.2020 (within further period of 30 days of proviso to Section 85). But the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed on 22.08.2022. No doubt, Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo moto writ petition No. 3 of 2020 decided on 10.01.2022 had ordered exclusion of time i.e. from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022) while calculating the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. 7. It is to be noted that the periods sixty days and thirty days have been substituted for within three months and three months by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11.5.2001. 8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the Limitation Act ) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
