2025 (3) TMI 1188 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner Appeals cannot condone delay beyond 30 days under Section 35 Central Excise Act despite COVID extensions

CESTAT Allahabad dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant after more than 30 months from receipt of the original order on 13.07.2020. The tribunal held ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limits as prescribed u/s 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, as applicable to Service Tax matters - authority of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - HELD THAT:- In the present case the Order-In-Original was undisputedly received by the Appellant on 13.07.2020. They filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) on 15.02.2023, i.e. after more than 30 months. Even if the benefit of the order dated 10.01.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motto Writ Petition [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER] is extended to the Appellant than also the appeal was to be filed by the Appellant within two months from 28.02.2022. Commissioner (Appeal) could have condoned delay in filing the appeal if the same was upto one month. The appeal has been filed much after the date by which this appeal could have been filed even after extending the benefit of this order of Hon’ble Apex Court. Appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period which could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Judgment relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly laid down that Commissioner (Appeals) has no Authority to condone the delay beyond 30 days. That being so by application of the said provision of the Central Excise Act and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order of Singh Enterprises [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] holding 'In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the Appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the Appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason.' Conclusion - i) Appeal dismissed as it was filed beyond the permissible time limits set by Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) is found to have no authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. iii) The Appellant's request for condonation of delay is not supported by sufficient cause, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal, upheld. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the appeal filed by the Appellant was within the permissible time limits as prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, as applicable to Service Tax matters.Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the statutory limits.Whether the Appellant's request for condonation of delay was justified by sufficient cause.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework governing the time limits for filing an appeal in service tax matters is outlined in Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. This section mandates that an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the decision or order by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone a delay of a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown. The legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, reinforces that the appellate authority has no power to condone delays beyond this additional 30-day period.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed well beyond the permissible period, even when considering the additional time allowed for condonation of delay. The Court referred to the statutory provisions and the precedent set by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Commissioner (Appeals) is strictly bound by these limits and has no jurisdiction to extend them further. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court's order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 did not aid their case, as the appeal was still filed beyond the extended period allowed.Key Evidence and FindingsThe evidence indicated that the Order-In-Original was received by the Appellant on 13.07.2020, and the appeal was filed on 15.02.2023, which is a delay of over 30 months. The Tribunal found that even with the extension granted by the Supreme Court's order, the appeal was filed too late.Application of Law to FactsApplying Section 85(3A) and the precedent from Singh Enterprises, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal was time-barred. The statutory provisions were clear in restricting the filing period to a maximum of three months (including the condonable delay), and the Appellant's filing exceeded this period significantly.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Appellant argued for condonation of delay, citing the Supreme Court's order in the Suo Motu Writ Petition. However, the Tribunal found that even with the benefit of this order, the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the delay could be condoned beyond the statutory limits.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the appeal was not maintainable due to being filed beyond the allowable period under the statutory framework. The request for condonation of delay was not supported by sufficient cause, and the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that statutory time limits for filing appeals are strict and cannot be extended beyond the specific provisions outlined in the law. The decision in Singh Enterprises was pivotal in this determination, emphasizing that the appellate authority lacks the power to condone delays beyond the prescribed period.Core Principles EstablishedThe statutory time limits for filing appeals are binding and cannot be extended by the appellate authority beyond what is explicitly allowed by law.The provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to extend these statutory periods.Sufficient cause for delay must be compelling and adequately justified within the statutory framework.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe appeal was dismissed as it was filed beyond the permissible time limits set by Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have no authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period.The Appellant's request for condonation of delay was not supported by sufficient cause, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss the appeal.