2026 (5) TMI 922

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in brief are as follows: 1.1 Based on an information that the appellants were providing taxable services under the category of Security Agency Service/Manpower Supply Agency Service to various firms/persons/organizations but were not paying service tax to the government, that the investigation was initiated. It was observed that during the period from 01.04.2011 to 12.09.2011, the appellant had provided those services against the consideration of Rs. 2,56,445/- which invites service tax liability of Rs. 28,334/- but the same was not paid by the appellant. Accordingly, vide Show Cause Notice bearing No. 65/2012 dated 01.10.2012, the aforesaid amount of service tax (Rs. 28,334/-) was proposed to be recovered along with interest at the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied upon, wherein it was held that the length of delay is not relevant but the explanation offered for the delay and the genuineness thereof. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Learned Authorized Representative while rebutting these submissions has mentioned that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) should have been filed within a period of two months. There is a statutory mandate on Commissioner (Appeals) to not to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed, except a period of 30 days over and above the period of two months. The delay here is of 195 days. Hence there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. There is no point discussing the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the documents before him that the Order-in-Original was received by the appellants on 05.03.2013. Seen from that the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was filed after a delay of 195 days. As apparent from Section 85(3A) of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no statutory mandate to condone any delay beyond the period of 30 days over and above the stipulated period of filing the appeal. We rely upon the decision referred by learned Authorized Representative in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), wherein it is held as follows: "8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute.....