2026 (4) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of providing declared services, but has not paid service tax to the Revenue. The activity of the appellant is not covered in the negative list of Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant was called upon to explain and to submit documents, however, the appellant did not appear. Department found that the service tax amounting of Rs. 70,01,478/- has not been paid by the appellant against amount of Rs. 5,34,15,225/- received for rendering taxable services. The said amount was proposed to be recovered along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalties. Vide show cause notice No. 15-18/2017-18 dated 21.11.2017. The proposal has been confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 31/2018-19 dated 28.08.2018. Appeal against the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tribunal. In Para 9.1, there is a table recording the fact that the appellant was not available at his address for the period from 15.09.2018 to 04.10.2018. Whereas in Para 9.2, it is mentioned that the appellant had met with an accident on 15.09.2018 and was hospitalized till 07.10.2018. The application is prayed to be dismissed in view of the said contradiction. 4. Having heard both the parties and perusing the entire case records, it is observed that the order-in-original dated 28.08.2018 was admittedly delivered at the appellant's address on 22.09.2018. Accordingly, the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed on or before 21.11.2018. But, apparently, the appeal was filed on 24.12.2018 i.e. after the delay of more ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of delay even before the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of such an application and the delay being beyond the condoning power of the Commissioner, we draw our support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur - 2008 (221) ELT 163 (S.C.) wherein the court held as follows:- "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of statute are not vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the statute. The period up to which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 19....