TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he learned AR. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 30.7.2014 whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being not maintainable as the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellant are running a multispecialty hospital in Mysore. The appellant voluntarily registered themselves for service tax in the Financial Year 2009-2010 under the category of Cosmetic and Plastic Surgery. The service of health check-up and treatment services was brought under the purview of service tax w.e.f. 1.7.2010. The appellant was under exemption limit till 15th July 2010 and started paying service tax from 16.7.2010 onwards. 3.1 The preventive staff of the service tax vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g into the merits of the case. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 5. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order dismissing the appeal at the threshold is not sustainable in law. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner (A) should have decided the appeal on merit after condoning the delay which was not inordinate delay and the delay was only 17 days in filing the appeal. He further submitted that in the preamble to the adjudication order passed by the Additional Commissioner, it was mentioned that appeal could be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order and if he takes the time of three months then there was only a delay of 17 days in filing the appeal and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to wrong mentioning of period of filing appeal of three months in the preamble of the adjudication order. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. C.C.E., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) held that appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal beyond 30 days. The Tribunal in the case of Margra Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Noida reported in 2008 (226) E.L.T. 620 (Tribunal) = 2008 (85) RLT 523 (CESTAT.-Del.) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay of more than 30 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (Supra). We find that the preamble of the adjudication order cannot override the sta....