2024 (11) TMI 923 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal dismissed for exceeding 90-day COVID extension deadline and failing Section 35B threshold requirements

Shri Javed Akhtar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST, Lucknow

CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The appellant failed to file within the 90-day limitation period from 01.03.2022 as prescribed by ... Dismissal of appeal as time barred - Time limitation for filing appeal during the Covid 19 outbreak - Non depicting correct value of the services provided in their ST-3 returns filed - information received from Income Tax Department - HELD THAT:- The appeal has been filed before the first Appellate Authority beyond the period of limitation as per the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 where the period of limitation have been stated as Ninety days from 01.03.2022 the said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court was consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. In the said decision taking note of the pandemic conditions, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that for period of pandemic, the limitation filed for filing the appeal shall be 90 days from 01.03.2022. As this decision was made in exceptional circumstances, it was setting the period of limitation in absolute terms without any power to the authorities to further condone the delay. Or more appropriately said the Hon’ble Supreme Court had condoned the delay in filing the appeals during the period of pandemic by setting the time limit for filing the appeals within 90 days from the 01.03.2022. Thus the impugned order rightly observed that the appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the prescribed period of limitation and he was not having the powers to condone the delay as per the order of Hon’ble Apex Court prescribing the period of limitation of 90 days from 01.03.2022. As observed that the total amount of disputed service tax in the present appeal is only Rs.1,41,610/-. In terms of second proviso to Section 35B(1) as the amount involved is less than Rs.2 lakhs, thus find that this appeal need not be admitted for consideration as no substantial question of law is involved in relation to rate of duty etc., is involved. Issues:1. Time limitation for filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemic.2. Demand of service tax, interest, and penalties.3. Power of appellate authority to condone delay in filing appeals.4. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on the amount involved.Analysis:Issue 1: Time limitation for filing appeal during the COVID-19 pandemicThe appeal was dismissed as time-barred due to being filed after the stipulated period set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in response to the COVID-19 outbreak. The appellant failed to adhere to the 90-day limitation period from 01.03.2022, as directed by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue 2: Demand of service tax, interest, and penaltiesThe Appellant, a proprietorship firm providing Works Contract Services, was issued a show cause notice for discrepancies in service tax returns. The Order-in-Original confirmed a demand of Rs.1,41,610/- along with interest and penalties. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the first Appellate Authority, leading to the current appeal.Issue 3: Power of appellate authority to condone delay in filing appealsThe Tribunal highlighted the limitations on the power of the appellate authority to condone delays in filing appeals. Citing legal precedents, it was emphasized that the appellate authority can only condone delays within the statutory period provided by law. In this case, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked the authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the specified period set by the Supreme Court.Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on the amount involvedConsidering the disputed service tax amount of Rs.1,41,610/-, falling below Rs.2 lakhs, the Tribunal found that the appeal did not involve substantial questions of law related to duty rates. As per the second proviso to Section 35B(1), the Tribunal decided not to admit the appeal for consideration due to the lower amount involved.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to being time-barred, emphasizing the strict adherence to the limitation period set during the pandemic. The decision also highlighted the limited power of appellate authorities to condone delays and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on the amount in dispute.