2012 (9) TMI 812 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal dismisses appeal as time-barred under Finance Act, 1994. Importance of statutory compliance emphasized.

The appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to being time-barred, as it was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for condonation of delay under the ... Rejection of appeal on ground of limitation - condonation of delay - OIO received on 30.12.2009, appeal filed with Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai inadvertently on 12.3.2010 without filing the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal came before Commissioner (Appeals) on 2.1.2012 - delay of more than 2 years - Held that:- According to section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, learned first appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the statutory period of three months plus the discretionary period of another three months under the proviso to sub-section 3(3) of section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, any appeal coming to his record beyond prescribed period of limitation fails to be maintainable being barred by limitation. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was right to confine his jurisdiction to section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. Tribunal has no power to drag Revenue to litigation reviving a litigation which came to an end with the passage of time. There is nothing on record to show bona fide of appellant's averments when record of Commissioner of Service Tax does not contain the appeal papers said to have been filed in his office under an acknowledgement. Appellate authority also has no power to take shelter of section 5 of the Limitation Act at all. Accordingly, appeal is liable to be dismissed - Decided against assessee Issues: Appeal dismissed on the ground of limitation.Analysis:1. The main issue in this appeal was the dismissal of the appellant's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The appellant received the Order-in-Original on 30th December, 2009, and filed the appeal on 12.3.2010 in the Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai, instead of before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The delay of more than two years led to the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of being time-barred.2. The appellant argued that the appeal was inadvertently filed in the wrong office but was acknowledged, and later a fresh appeal was filed before the correct forum. The appellant sought condonation of the delay based on this acknowledgment and cited a Tribunal decision to support the transfer of the appeal to the right forum in case of filing in the wrong office.3. The Revenue contended that there was no evidence of the appeal being filed before the Commissioner of Service Tax and accused the appellant of attempting to bypass the statutory limitation by filing at the wrong forum. Allowing such actions would set a wrong precedent and encourage frivolous appeals after the limitation period, affecting revenue and wasting public officers' time.4. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for condonation of delay under the Finance Act, 1994. It cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that statutory authorities cannot act beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Tribunal clarified that it cannot compel a statutory authority to act beyond its jurisdiction.5. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous decision where an appeal was filed in a wrong forum, emphasizing that statutory authorities do not have the power to transfer proceedings like Civil Courts. Dismissing the appeal would render the appellant without a remedy under the Act, but the Tribunal lacked the authority to revive a litigation that had lapsed due to time constraints.6. The Tribunal highlighted that the proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994 are governed by specific limitation periods, and the appellate authority cannot invoke general provisions like section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant's failure to provide evidence of filing the appeal in the Commissioner of Service Tax's office under an acknowledgment led to the dismissal of the appeal.7. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the professional responsibility of Chartered Accountants in legal matters. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claims and the inability to extend the jurisdiction of the appellate authority beyond the statutory mandate.