TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o months under the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Tribunal's order dated 10 May 2023 refusing to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Mr. Jha urges the formulation of the following questions, which, according to him, are substantial questions of law:- "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the Tribunal had power u/s 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read along with section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone delay in filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) beyond the one month period provided in proviso to section 85(3A). (b) Whether, on the facts and in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is a good ground to interfere with the Tribunal's decision in this case. 7. Mr. Adik learned counsel for the Respondent submits that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, and in any event, such questions must be answered against the Appellant given the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681 and Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. WP(L) No.4053 of 2020 decided on 25 February 2021 decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 9. In this case, the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Pune-II Commis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the decision or order of the adjudicating authority, if such decision or order has been made after the Finance Bill, 2012 had received the assent of the President. From the record, it is apparent that the Order-in-Original dated 15 November 2019 was passed after the receipt of assent of the President to the Finance Bill, 2012. 13. The proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85, however, empowers the appellate authority to condone the delay in presentation of the appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation of two months, within a further period of one month, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal and the stipulated period of two months. 14. Therefore, on analysis of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....months, the Commissioner (Appeals) has acted in accord with the provisions of sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Tribunal, by exercising the powers under Section 35C (1), could not have either itself condoned the delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond the maximum prescribed period. The Tribunal was therefore justified in finding no fault with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dated 30 September 2020 and dismissing the appeal against the same. 18. In M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interpreted similar provisions contained in Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh....