2018 (12) TMI 1297 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Filing Late Beyond Time Limit; Factory Layoff Reason Not Condonable

Bhadra Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane Niyamith Versus Commissioner Of Central Tax, Bangalore North West Commissionerate

The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (A) due to being filed 298 days beyond the prescribed time limit, citing factory layoff as the reason for ... Condonation of delay of 298 days in filing appeal - appellant has submitted that they had no knowledge regarding the service tax liability on rent and they got the registration on 20.6.2013 and had filed the service tax returns through electronically - Held that:- Admittedly, there is a delay of 298 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A), which is beyond the condonable power of the Commissioner (A) - Since the delay in the present case was beyond the condonable limit, therefore, the Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time bar. Reliance placed in the case of SINGH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - appeal dismissed. Issues:- Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (A)- Applicability of Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994- Jurisdiction of Commissioner (A) to condone delay- Interpretation of statutory provisions for appeal timelinesCondonation of Delay in Filing Appeal:The appeal was filed 298 days beyond the prescribed time limit before the Commissioner (A), leading to dismissal by the Commissioner (A). The appellant cited factory layoff in 2004 as the reason for the delay, seeking condonation. However, the Commissioner (A) held that the delay was beyond his power of condonation as per Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. This section mandates appeal presentation within 60 days, extendable by a further 30 days under certain conditions. The Order-in-Original was received on 31.3.2016, with the due date for appeal being 30.5.2016, but the appeal was filed on 24.3.2017, resulting in the delay.Applicability of Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994:The Commissioner (A) based the decision on the provisions of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, which govern the timeline for filing appeals. Notably, the section allows for a 60-day window for appeal submission, with a provision for a further 30-day extension under specific circumstances. The Commissioner (A) emphasized that the delay in this case exceeded the condonable limit, as per the statutory provisions.Jurisdiction of Commissioner (A) to Condone Delay:The Commissioner (A) assessed the grounds provided in the condonation application and referenced the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises. This case clarified that appellate authorities have limited jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the specified period. The Commissioner (A) concluded that the delay of 298 days in filing the appeal was outside the condonable scope, as outlined in the statutory framework.Interpretation of Statutory Provisions for Appeal Timelines:The judgment highlighted the statutory interpretation concerning appeal timelines, drawing on the case law to emphasize the limitations on condonation powers. The reference to Singh Enterprises case underscored that the legislature intended appellate authorities to entertain appeals within a specific timeframe, with a clear exclusion of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation purposes. Consequently, the Commissioner (A) upheld the dismissal of the appeal as time-bar, aligning with the legal principles established in the case law.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay exceeding the condonable limit set by the statutory provisions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines for filing appeals before appellate authorities.