High Court remits appeal for limitation period decision, sets aside order, referral for certified copy issue.

The High Court remitted the appeal back to the tribunal for a decision on when the limitation period should commence, setting aside the impugned order. The Court refrained from conclusively determining if the appeal should be based on the certified copy, leaving this matter for the tribunal's further consideration.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against the judgment and order of the appellate tribunal dismissed on the ground of limitation.
- Determination of the period of limitation for filing an appeal.
- Interpretation of whether the period of limitation is counted from the date of receiving the copy of the original order or the certified copy of the order.
- Applicability of the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding the extension of the limitation period.
- Discrepancy between the un-certified copy and the certified copy of the order.

Analysis:

1. The appeal in question was filed against the judgment and order of the appellate tribunal, which was dismissed based on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation. The appellant sought waiver of penalties imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The original order imposing penalties was dated 17.08.2010, and the appellant received it on 19.01.2011. The main contention revolved around the limitation period for filing an appeal against this order.

2. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows for an extension of the limitation period under certain circumstances. The respondents argued that the limitation period of three months for filing the appeal can only be extended for a further three months if the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial three months. The appeal, in this case, was filed after six months from the date of the original order, rendering it time-barred.

3. A significant aspect of the case was the determination of when the limitation period should commence - from the date of receiving the copy of the original order or the certified copy of the order. The appellant contended that the appeal could not be filed against the un-certified copy provided by the Commissioner, as it was only for private use. They argued that the certified copy, which requires a court fee stamp for filing an appeal, is the appropriate document to initiate the appeal process.

4. The discrepancy between the un-certified copy and the certified copy of the order played a crucial role in the arguments presented. The appellant emphasized that the appeal should be based on the certified copy, as per the requirements outlined in the order dated 17.08.2010. The tribunal's findings, which suggested that the appeal could have been filed based on the original order received on 19.01.2011, were contested based on the specific instructions in the order regarding the use of the copy for private purposes.

5. In light of the above issues and arguments presented, the High Court remitted the appeal back to the tribunal for a decision on the specific issue of when the limitation period should commence. The impugned order was set aside to allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the facts and legal interpretations involved in determining the validity of the appeal. The Court refrained from making a definitive decision on whether the appeal should be based on the certified copy, leaving this aspect open for further consideration by the tribunal.

---