2024 (2) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR/2018 dated 21.06.2018, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed on the ground of limitation. 2. From the impugned order, we find that the order-in-original was passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 27.02.2015 and the same was communicated to the appellant on 30.03.2015, however, the appeal was filed on 02.07.2015 i.e. after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Considering the provisions of Section 85(3A), the learned Commissioner observed that the appeal has to be preferred within two months from the date of communication of the order, however, proviso to Section 85(3A) enlarges the period of limitation by further period of one month, in case where the Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Finance Act also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Diamond Construction Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - 2020 (35) GSTL 193 (T-Delhi). 5. Having heard both the sides and perused the records of the case, we do not find any merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and also we see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) in unambiguous terms, has laid down that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of the extended p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period." 6. Following the aforesaid decision, this Tribunal in the case of Diamond Construction Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - 2020 (35) GSTL 193 (T-Delhi) dealt with the scope of Section 85 of the Finance Act, which provided for presenting an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Relevant para of the order is quoted:- "8. A perusal of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 clearly indicates that an appeal shall be presented within two months from the d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....per authority for levying the service tax and to file the appeal challenging the impugned order needs to be rejected for the simple reason that in response to the show cause notice, the appellant had submitted the reply and in adjudication proceedings, it is the appellant, who had contested. Thereafter, an appeal was also filed by the appellant only, may be after some delay. Similarly, the appeal has been filed before this Tribunal but after delay of more than 4 years and 9 months though the limitation prescribed for filing an appeal before this Tribunal as per Section 86 is three months from the date of receipt of the order. Therefore, the ground taken by the appellant in approaching this Tribunal after such a long delay is not justified. ....