2024 (10) TMI 1737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce tax of Rs.4,85,486/- /- along with interest and penalty has been rejected on the grounds of limitation. The facts in brief are as follows: 1.1 Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), Service Tax Wing, New Delhi while unearthing the service tax evasion, dissemination, verification and monitoring of third party data had come across the income tax return of the appellant for the Financial Year 2016-17. It was revealed that the appellant had received an amount of Rs.1,22,17,662/- in the said financial year. Since the appellant, despite notice could not satisfy that the income is not against the taxable service, a Show Cause Notice No. 2129 dated 18.10.2021, was served upon the appellant proposing the demand of service tax for an amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) has wrongly been relied upon. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Per contra learned Departmental Representative has impressed upon no infirmity in the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) arrived at in the order under challenge. The appeal before him was admittedly filed beyond the requisite period of 60 days from the date of receiving the Order-in-Original. The appellant cannot be benefited out of his own wrong of not filing the application. Accordingly, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cretion granted by statute, it was the duty of Commissioner (Appeals) to see, if there is any sufficient and reasonable explanation for delay of 3 days. 5.3 I further observe that since the impugned delay is covered under proviso to Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, the reliance of Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra) is not sustainable because in the said case, the delay was over and above 2 months + 1 month (over 3 months). In the present case delay is over 2 months and 3 days of the 3rd month. 6. I further observe from the impugned appeal that the appellant dispatched the appeal against O-I-O dated 28.12.2022 to the office of Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Bhopal on ....