2010 (10) TMI 328 - AT - Service Tax

Appeals dismissed for late filing by successors of deceased Managing Partner. Strict adherence to limitation laws emphasized.

Siddramappa S. Yalamalli Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum

The appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal as they were filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The Tribunal held that the appellants, as ... Demand - Time limitation - Condonation of delay - The statutory authorities created under a statute have to function within the parameters prescribed under such statute and cannot travel beyond the limits prescribed under the same - as far as the period of limitation for exercise of the right to appeal is concerned under the relevant statute, it commences from the day when aggrieved party receives the copy of the order - the expression accrual of right used in section 16 cannot be equated with the survival of the right already accrued on receipt of the copy of the order - Commissioner (Appeals) could not have entertained the appeal after the expiry of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copies of the orders by the Managing Partner of the appellants - Decided against the assessee Issues:1. Appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.2. Interpretation of section 16 of the Limitation Act, 1963.3. Applicability of statutory provisions regarding the period of limitation in tax matters.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeal filed beyond the statutory period of limitationThe appeals were filed beyond the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the orders by the Managing Partner, who subsequently passed away. The contention was that the appellants, as successors of the deceased Managing Partner, only became aware of the receipt of the orders after his death. However, the law requires appeals to be filed within the specified time frame, and the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeals filed beyond the statutory limitation period.Issue 2: Interpretation of section 16 of the Limitation Act, 1963The appellants argued that the period of limitation should be counted from the date when they, as successors, became aware of the orders, which was within 6 months of the Managing Partner's receipt. However, section 16 of the Limitation Act deals with situations where the right to sue accrues after the death of a party. In this case, the right to file the appeal accrued when the Managing Partner received the orders, not after his death. Therefore, section 16 did not apply to extend the limitation period.Issue 3: Applicability of statutory provisions regarding the period of limitation in tax mattersThe law specifically provides for the time frame within which appeals must be filed in tax matters. The statutory authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals), are bound by these provisions and cannot exceed the powers granted to them. The Tribunal cannot extend the period of limitation beyond what is prescribed by law, as established in previous judgments by the Apex Court. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly dismissed the appeals filed after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no fault with the impugned orders dismissing the appeals due to being filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The interpretation of section 16 of the Limitation Act did not support extending the limitation period in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory provisions regarding the period of limitation in tax matters must be strictly adhered to, and no extensions can be granted beyond what is prescribed by law. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.