2025 (1) TMI 478 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal dismissed for filing beyond 90-day limit under Section 85 of Finance Act 1994

CESTAT New Delhi dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation. The appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of 60 days plus additional 30 days under ... Rejection of appeal on the grounds of limitation - delay in filing the said appeal was much beyond the period of 60 days + 30 days as per Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- Sub clause 3(A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, makes it abundantly clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) is being vested with the power to condone the delay which may occur while filing the appeal before him, only for further period of one month (30 days) over and above the period of two months during which, otherwise, the appeal would have been filed. The present appeal apparently and admittedly has been after a delay of more than 12 months from the date of receipt of order-in-original as shown in the document received from Postal Department. Keeping in view the said statutory mandate of Section 85(3A) of Finance Act, 1994, there are no infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the present appeal on the grounds of limitation. There are no request from the appellant even post receiving the recovery notice dated 15.02.2023 vide which appellant would have requested the department for the status/copy of the order in original. It is also observed that even after receiving the copy of order in appeal admittedly, on 24.02.2023 the present appeal has been filed at the period of two months from the said date. The said conduct is insufficient to reflect the due diligence on part of the appellant specifically when appellant was aware of the impugned proceedings. Conclusion - The statutory limits for filing appeals under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, are strict and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period. The appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the permissible period. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rightly dismissed on the grounds of limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.Whether the appellant received the Order-in-Original in a timely manner, thereby affecting the timeliness of their appeal.Whether the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was rebutted by the appellant.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Dismissal of Appeal on Grounds of LimitationRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appeal process and time limits are governed by Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The section allows for an appeal to be filed within two months of receiving the decision, with a possible extension of one month if sufficient cause is shown. The case of Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur was cited, establishing that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no authority to condone delays beyond this period.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal confirmed that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied the statutory time limits, as the appeal was filed more than 12 months after the presumed receipt of the Order-in-Original.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the document from the Postal Department indicating the delivery of the Order-in-Original on 04.02.2022, which was considered sufficient proof of service.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory time limits and found no error in the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to file within the allowable period.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued non-receipt of the Order-in-Original, while the Department provided evidence of service. The Tribunal favored the Department's evidence, citing the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing the statutory mandate and lack of authority to condone excessive delays.Issue 2: Timely Receipt of Order-in-OriginalRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 presumes service of documents sent by post unless proven otherwise. The appellant referenced a precedent where unauthorized receipt was contested.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found the postal delivery document sufficient to establish service, as it included a signature and mobile number of the recipient.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided an affidavit claiming non-receipt, but the Tribunal found it insufficient against the Postal Department's evidence.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the presumption of service and found the appellant's rebuttal inadequate, as the address matched previous communications and no proactive inquiry was made by the appellant.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant's argument of non-receipt was countered by the Department's evidence of service. The Tribunal favored the latter, citing the lack of corroborative evidence from the appellant.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the Order-in-Original was properly served, and the appellant's appeal was untimely.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim Quote: 'I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the present appeal on the grounds of limitation.'Core Principles Established: The statutory limits for filing appeals under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, are strict and cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period. The presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, stands unless effectively rebutted.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the permissible period, and the evidence of service was deemed sufficient, negating the appellant's claims of non-receipt.