2017 (7) TMI 901 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Time Bar, Emphasizing Statutory Timelines

The Commissioner City Municipal Council Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Mangalore

The Commissioner City Municipal Council Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Mangalore - TMI Issues:Appeal against dismissal based on limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act.Analysis:The appellant provided Renting of Immovable Property Services without registration or paying service tax, leading to a demand of Rs. 32,00,157. The lower authority confirmed this demand along with interest, penalty under Section 77(1)(a) and 78, and late fees under Rule 7C of the Service Tax Rules. The appellant collected Rs. 2,87,30,864 from renting out property to commercial shops from 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2012. The appellant argued they performed a sovereign function for the State, paid Rs. 20,09,319 post the Order-in-Original, and claimed ignorance of tax evasion intent.The appellant contended the impugned order ignored legal provisions and requested a remand for a merit-based decision. The appellant's counsel highlighted their payment post the Order-in-Original and claimed ignorance of tax laws without intent to evade taxes. The respondent argued the appeal was rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to being filed 280 days after the relevant date, exceeding the condonable period of 30 days.The Tribunal found the appeal was filed 280 days after the relevant date, beyond the condonable period. Citing the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, the Tribunal upheld the rejection based on limitation. The impugned order was upheld, dismissing the appellant's appeal, as the delay was not condonable. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to the statutory appeal timelines and precedent regarding condonation of delays beyond 90 days, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred under Section 85 of the Finance Act. The decision was based on the appellant's delay of 280 days in filing the appeal, exceeding the statutory limit and the condonable period. The Tribunal's decision aligned with legal precedents regarding the condonation of delays beyond 90 days, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals.