TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'Appellant') against the Order-inAppeal No. 232/2015(STA-II) dated 26.08.2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II). 2. Brief facts of the appeal are that the appellant is engaged in freight forwarding activities and logistics solutions, predominantly handling export cargo originating from India to foreign destinations by air, while also handling import cargo arriving in India. 3. The present appeal is filed against an order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 232/2015 dated 26.08.2015. The Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed on the ground of belated filing of appeal as under: "5. .........However, this appeal was filed on 28.11.2013. Hence, in this case, the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Commissioner 24.08.2012 (i.e., within the statutory period) 5. Appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) 28.11.2013 6. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the acknowledged copy of the appeal addressed to the commissioner appeals but filed with the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax by mistake which was located in the same building, extracted as under: - 7. On perusal of the above, it confirms the submission of the Ld. counsel for the Appellant that an appeal in fact was filed within the statutory period, albeit, the assessee appellant has mistakenly filed the appeal before the wrong authority who was also located in the very same building. It has been pleaded in their Statement of Fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal dated 19th December, 2002. The Tribunal was hearing an appeal against an order dated 23rd April, 2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). By that order the Commissioner (Appeals) had merely dismissed the appeal because pre-deposit was not made. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not gone into the merits. Therefore, the only question before the Tribunal was whether pre-deposit was required or not. The Tribunal has chosen to go into the merits and decided the appeal on merits also. This should not have been done. 3. Parties are agreed that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter be referred back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the condition that the predeposit is dispensed with. Accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)]. 12. The law laid down in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), supports the case of the appellant, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered the issue of condonation of delay with reference to the provisions of Section 128 of the Customs Act in light of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the said decision, the Supreme Court had also considered the P. Sarathy vs. State Bank of India [2000 (5) SCC 355] holding that the Court referred to in Section 14 would include quasi-judicial Tribunal and, therefore, concluded that on the principles contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the time taken in prosecuting an abortive proceedings would have to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant was within time. Keeping in view of the above noted facts of the present case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the exclusion of time in pursuing the appeal before Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, the appeal finally filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not barred by limitation. 15. We therefore set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 232/2015(STA-II) dated 26.08.2015 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), Chennai and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits without going into the question of limitation in relation to filing of appeal. 16. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Considering the period of dispute pertains to 2....