Tribunal grants appeal, remits case for fresh hearing. Timely appeal filing crucial. Distinction on time extension clarified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merit. The appellant's appeal, filed within the two-month period of receiving the order-in-original, was considered timely. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between extending time for appeal presentation and condoning delay post-presentation, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and directing a reconsideration of the case on its merits.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order of the Commissioner of Central tax for not considering the appeal on merit due to a delay in filing without a condonation application.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant challenged the decision of the Commissioner of Central tax (Appeals-I) for not addressing the merits of the case during the final disposal of the appeal. The appeal was filed 69 days after receiving the order-in-original without a delay condonation application. The appellant contended that the order was received on 23.04.2017, but due to a typographical error in the ST-4 form, the date of communication was mentioned as 12.04.2017. The appeal was filed on 21.06.2017, leading to a 9-day delay according to the Commissioner (Appeals), who cited precedents like Singh Enterprises and Prithvi Hotels to dismiss the appeal.

The respondent, represented by the department's AR, argued that no irregularity was found in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order since no condonation of delay application was filed within the condonable period of 30 days available at the Commissioner (Appeals)'s discretion. After hearing both sides and examining the case papers, it was noted that the order-in-original was dated 31.03.2017 and served on the appellant on 23.04.2017, within 3 weeks of the pronouncement. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to Section 85(3A) and its proviso to justify his decision that he lacked the authority to condone subsequent delays without an application.

The Tribunal observed that an appeal must be filed within two months of receiving the adjudicating authority's decision. In this case, the statement of fact confirmed the receipt on 23.04.2017, which was verified by the appellant. The gap between the pronouncement and communication of the order was 23 days, making the appeal filed on 21.06.2017 within the two-month period. Even if the Commissioner doubted the date, the proviso allowed for a further 30-day extension. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between extending time for appeal presentation and condoning delay post-presentation, citing a Supreme Court judgment. As per Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal could only hear appeals against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), not directly against the adjudicating authority's order.

Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on merit, emphasizing that the appeal was filed within the stipulated period and should have been admitted for consideration.

---