TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 978
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 66B ibid. 2.3 Information was received from the Income Tax Department that during the Financial Year 2016-17 appellant has received Rs.44,93,482/- against the provision of taxable services during that period on which the appellant was required to pay appropriate service tax on the said services. 2.4 An inquiry/investigation was initiated and appellant was asked to produce documentary evidences as follows and to show the details of service tax paid by them:- 1) Audited Balance sheet along with all annexure for the F.Y. 2015-16 to 2016-17 and Trial Balance for the period April 2017 to June 2017. 2) Copies of Form-26AS and Income Tax Returns for the Financial Year 2015-16 to 2016-17 and 2017-18. 3) Copies of ST-3 Returns for the period 2015-16 to 2017-18. 4) Details of payment of service tax i.e. copies of challans. 5) Copies of bills/invoices issued to clients in respect of services provided by the party as a Service provider. 6) Details of bills/invoices of services Provider on which the party has paid Service Tax as service Receiver. 7) Bank Account Statement for the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod 2016-17 and order its recovery from them." 2.7 Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) which has been dismissed as per the impugned order. 2.8 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 I have heard Shri Balram Mishra, Consultant for the appellant and Smt Chitra Srivastava Authorized Representative for the revenue. 3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submits that- ⮚ Order-in-Original was not served upon the appellant in initial stage and only after receipt of the Orde, they filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) within the prescribed period of limitation as provided in law from the date of actual receipt. ⮚ The acknowledgement referred in the impugned order is from a person who was unknown to them. ⮚ Thus, the appeal could not have been dismissed by the First Appellate Authority on this ground and decision should have been rendered on merit and they have strong case on merits. 3.3 Learned Authorized Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 4.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abad, Sikandrabad. Regard, Signed/- 7/2/23 9058392334 M/s Shiv Contractor, D-37, UPSIDC, Industrial Area, Sikandrabad, Bulandshahar-203205" 5.4 Thus, there is evidence that the appellant has received the impugned Order-in-Original on 07.02.2023; whereas the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant on 30.01.2025 beyond around 20 months after deducting the period of three months under which an assessee can file the appeal with a condonation of delay for one month on the sufficient/convincing ground. Thus, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is grossly time barred." 4.3 The claim made by the appellant that Order-in-Original was served on the person who was unknown to them is nothing but a fraud which appellant/ appellant's Counsel has tried to play before this Tribunal. The acknowledgement receipt has been reproduced in the order and it records all the relevant details. Further I observe that appellant was throughout in possession and knowledge of this order in original from 07.02.2023 the date when it was served and acknowledged by the appellant as per the acknowledgement receipt. 4.4 Authorized....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days. (2) Every appeal under this section shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner." 7. It is to be noted that the periods "sixty days" and "thirty days" have been substituted for "within three months" and "three months" by Act 14 of 2001, with effect from 11-5-2001. 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. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that view of the matter, the appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. There will be no order as to costs." 4.8 In case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. & Ors. [Order dated 08.04.2024 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 31248 Of 2018] after considering the past precedence Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21-6-2017. On the other hand, in the affidavit of Mr. Sreedhar Routh, Site Director of the respondent company (filed in support of the application for condonation of delay before the appellate authority), it is stated that the company became aware about the irregularities committed by its erring official (Mr. P. Sriram Murthy) in the month of July, 2018, which pre-supposes that the respondent must have become aware about the assessment order, at least in July, 2018. In the same affidavit, it is asserted that the respondent-company was not aware about the assessment order, as it was not brought to its notice by the employee concerned due to his negligence. The respondent in the writ petition has averred that the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines the cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding has not been examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about the disc....