2009 (10) TMI 163 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal delay not excused: Legal principles upheld in dismissal based on lack of merit

The appellant sought condonation of a 22-month delay in filing the appeal, arguing for merit based on payment of full tax amount and reasonable cause. ... Condonation of delay- Commissioner (Appeals) has held that as the appeal was filed after 22 months’ delay, which cannot be condoned. In the light of the decision of Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2008 -TMI - 2805 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that the appeal is filed after a delay of 22 months and law does not provide any powers to condone the delay, thus the appeal have no merit and accordingly rejected. Issues: Appeal delay condonation, Merit of the appealIssue 1: Appeal delay condonationThe appellant's Chartered Accountant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not pass the order on merit due to a delay of 22 months in filing the appeal, which the Commissioner did not condone. The appellant contended that the full Service Tax amount was paid with no dispute on the tax liability, and there was a reasonable cause for the delay. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in H.M.T. Ltd. v. CC 2009 (239) ELT 329, the appellant argued that the appeal could have been considered on merit. On the contrary, the SDR cited the decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE [2008] 12 STT 21 (SC), where the Supreme Court held that the appellate authority lacks the power to condone appeals filed beyond the statutory limitation, making such orders sustainable.Issue 2: Merit of the appealThe Technical Member, considering the settled law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per Singh Enterprises case, proceeded with the appeal without pre-deposit by the appellant. The delay of 22 months in filing the appeal was not condoned, as per the Supreme Court's ruling that such delays cannot be excused. Consequently, the Technical Member found no merit in the appeal based on the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court and rejected the appeal accordingly.This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal and the merit of the appeal. The appellant argued for condonation of the delay citing reasonable cause and payment of the full tax amount, while the SDR relied on legal precedents to assert that such delays cannot be condoned. The Technical Member, following the Supreme Court's ruling, rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the delay in filing the appeal could not be excused based on established legal principles.