TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Time-Barred Appeal</h1> The Appellate Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) as time-barred under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. ... Delay in filing of an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - period of limitation - The appeal was filed after five months and sixteen days. - The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that in terms of Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, the initial period of appeal of two months is extendable by another one month by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). However, the present appeal before him, was filed with further delay of more than three months and hence, he rejected the appeal as barred by limitation - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) cannot exercise powers beyond condonable period of limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. - there is no ground to interfere with the order of the lower Appellate Authority in this case. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee. Issues: Appeal against time-barred dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on limitation under Section 85 (3A) of Finance Act, 1994.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved an appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Noida. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation as per Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, without discussing the merit of the demand. The appellant contended that they should not be deprived of a legal remedy solely due to limitation and asserted a strong case on merit based on factual grounds. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court to argue for the condonation of delay in the interest of substantial justice.The Revenue, represented by the ld. A.R., supported the findings of the impugned order and cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to emphasize that condonation of delay beyond the prescribed limitation period is not permissible. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, focused on the legal correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed after a delay of more than three months from the initial order date, exceeding the extendable period under Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.The Tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, to establish that when a statute specifies a particular limitation period, condonation of delay beyond that period is impermissible. The Tribunal highlighted that the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, regarding appeals are akin to those under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Customs Act, 1962. Citing judgments by different High Courts, the Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the authority to extend the condonable period of limitation beyond what is statutorily provided.Based on the clear legal provisions and the cited case laws, the Appellate Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the lower Appellate Authority's order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and upheld the principle that judicial powers cannot override or contravene established legal provisions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
