2016 (6) TMI 1034 - HC - Service Tax

Court upholds dismissal of appeal due to delay in filing before Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals)

R. Gowrishankar Versus The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) -I, The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax

The appeal challenging the Writ Court's decision to not set aside the order denying condonation of a 223-day delay in filing an appeal before the ... Condonation of delay of 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) - disallowance and demand under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, r/w. Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- Section 85 of the Finance Act, is similar to Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962; Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the statutes referred to above, are self contained Acts and codes by themselves. The High Court or the Supreme Court, as the case may be, cannot direct the appellate authority to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation. Courts have also interpreted that when the legislative intent is reflected in the provisions of the special laws, excluding the provisions of Limitation Act, then the authorities under the statute, cannot exercise powers to condone the delay. On the aspect of the Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to condone the delay, we are of the view that the decision of this Court in Indian Coffee Worker's Co-operative Society Ltd.,'s [2002 (1) TMI 1302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], squarely applies to the case on hand - Condonation of delay denied - Decided against the assessee. Issues Involved:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal2. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act4. Powers of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaDetailed Analysis:1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:The appeal challenges the Writ Court's order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition, which sought to condone a delay of 223 days in filing an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The appellant suffered an order disallowing CENVAT Credit and imposing penalties, which they appealed with a delay due to organizational disarray. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as it was beyond the condonable period provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows a maximum delay of three months to be condoned.2. Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority:The Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was filed beyond the permissible period, as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The statute allows the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delays up to three months beyond the initial three-month period, but not beyond that. The Writ Court upheld this decision, stating that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period.3. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:The appellant argued that the principles of natural justice should allow for the delay to be condoned. However, the court cited several precedents, including Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur, and Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., which established that the provisions of the Limitation Act, specifically Section 5, do not apply where the special statute prescribes a specific period of limitation. The court reiterated that the statutory period for filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act is absolute and unextendable beyond the additional three months.4. Powers of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:The appellant contended that the High Court should exercise its powers under Article 226 to condone the delay. The court examined various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, which clarified that while the High Court has extraordinary jurisdiction, it cannot extend the period of limitation prescribed by the statute. The court emphasized that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot re-write the provisions of the Act or direct the appellate authority to consider an appeal on merits if it is time-barred.Conclusion:The court concluded that the statutory provisions under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, are explicit and do not allow for condonation of delay beyond the specified period. The High Court cannot extend this period under its writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Writ Court's decision and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits to maintain the finality and certainty of legal proceedings.