2009 (9) TMI 208 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed as Time-Barred under Finance Act 1994

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as time-barred under Section 85(3) of the Finance Act 1994. It clarified that the appeal period consisted of an initial ... Appeal dismissed by Commissioner (A) on account of delay - Whereas the first three months is statutorily allowed to the aggrieved party to file an appeal, any further time within the next three months is available if the cause for the delay is explained. - In the instant case, the order was received on 10-9-2007 - In the instant case the three months period after receipt of the order by the appellant ended on 10th December ‘07. The next three months has to be computed by excluding the first day of the next block of three months i.e., 11th December. Further three months therefore ends on 11th March ‘08. As the appeal was received by the Commissioner (A) on 12th March ‘08, the same is received beyond the condonable period of three months. Commissioner (A) has no powers to condone any delay beyond the further period of three months which expired on 11th March 2008. We find that the impugned order rightly held the appeal to be barred by limitation Issues:- Calculation of the condonable period for filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994.- Interpretation of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and its application in computing the appeal period.- Determination of the scope of provisions of Section 85(3) of the Act regarding the time limit for filing an appeal.Analysis:1. Calculation of the Condonable Period:The case involved a dispute regarding the condonable period for filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994. The appellants argued that they had filed the appeal within the condonable period, while the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal as time-barred. The key contention was the computation of the three-month period allowed for filing the appeal and the further three-month period that the appellate authority could allow. The Tribunal analyzed the timeline of events and the provisions of the Act to determine the correct calculation of the condonable period.2. Interpretation of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act:The appellants relied on the interpretation of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act to support their argument that the appeal was filed within the condonable period. They cited a previous court decision to emphasize the usage of the words 'from' and 'to' in excluding the first day and including the last day of a period. The Tribunal considered this interpretation in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the Finance Act to ascertain the correct computation of the appeal period and whether the appeal was indeed filed within the condonable timeframe.3. Scope of Section 85(3) of the Act:The Tribunal delved into the scope of Section 85(3) of the Act concerning the time limit for filing an appeal. It clarified that the aggrieved party had three months from the date of receipt of the order to file an appeal, with a provision for a further three-month period if sufficient cause was shown. The Tribunal highlighted that the appeal period was not a continuous duration of six months but comprised an initial three-month period and a subsequent three-month period subject to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. By interpreting the provisions of the Act and relevant legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period and upheld the decision to reject the appeal as time-barred.In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the provisions of the Finance Act, the General Clauses Act, and the specific timeline of events led to the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of being filed beyond the condonable period as stipulated under Section 85(3) of the Act. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the necessity of satisfying the appellate authority with sufficient cause for any delay in filing an appeal.