2026 (3) TMI 653 - AT - Service Tax

Appellate time limits under Section 85(3A): receipt at recorded address governs limitation; appeal held time barred.

Whether an appeal was time barred under Section 85(3A) turned on proof of receipt; the applicable rule requires filing within two months of receipt, with ... Appeal filed before the Commissioner time barred - Proof of postal delivery for service of order - statutory time limit prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Condonation beyond statutory maximum - invoking the extended period under the proviso to section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Proof of postal delivery for service of order - Whether the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time barred in view of service of the Order in Original by speed post - HELD THAT:- The Court held that proof of delivery requires evidence beyond mere dispatch, but the appellant's own affidavit established that the Order in Original was received at the departmental address by the occupant and was handed over to the appellant only later. On that basis the department discharged the burden of establishing proof of delivery at the address on record, and the appeal was therefore delayed beyond the statutory filing period. [Paras 6, 7, 8] The appeal was time barred because service of the order at the address on record was established and the appeal was filed after the permissible period. Limitation prescribed under Section 85(3A) not amenable to condonation beyond statutory maximum - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the maximum period permitted by statute - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the precedent that the appellate authority is a creature of statute and has no power to condone delay beyond the specific maximum period prescribed; the proviso permits extension only for the limited additional period and excludes wider reliance on general limitation provisions. [Paras 9] The Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone delay beyond the statutory maximum and correctly rejected the appeal on limitation grounds. Final Conclusion: The impugned order rejecting the appeal as time barred is upheld: service was held proved at the address on record and the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly refused condonation beyond the statutory limit, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Issues: Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) was time barred under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.Analysis: The appellate time limits under Section 85(3A) require filing within two months of receipt of the order with an additional one month only upon showing sufficient cause. Proof of postal receipt requires evidence beyond mere despatch, such as delivery confirmation or postal acknowledgement. The departmental record showed despatch and absence of return; the recipient's affidavit established that the impugned order was received at the address in departmental records and was handed over to the appellant's representatives only on a later date due to the occupant's delay in informing them. The affidavit thereby evidences actual receipt at the recorded address and supports the conclusion that the department discharged the burden of establishing delivery.Conclusion: The appeal was time barred and the appellate authority correctly rejected the appeal on grounds of delay.