TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was filed against the Order-in-Original No. 101/2022-23 dated 23.02.2023 vide which the service tax demand of Rs.3,31,157/- along with interest and the penalties was confirmed against the appellant who is engaged in providing taxable service as that of 'Maintenance or Repair Service' without discharging the respective service tax liability. 2. I have heard Shri Gokul Holani and Ms. Arpita Pande, learned Advocates for the appellant and Shri Ram Pravesh Prasad, learned Authorized Representative for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order was passed at the second stage of litigation. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay but witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled before him. The said cause was brought to his notice by way of filing an application seeking restoration of the appeal by recalling his order. However, the said application was also dismissed. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported as 2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC), Wherein it was held that length of delay is not at all relevant as rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has mentioned that from the order under challenge it is clear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to those directions that the Order-in-Original No. 101/2022-23 dated 23.02.2023 was passed again confirming the proposal of show cause notice dated 17.10.2019. The appeal against the said Order-in-Original has been rejected, on the grounds of limitation, vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 06.06.2024. It is also observed that in compliance of the directions of demand, the original adjudicating authority had given due opportunity of hearing to the appellant who also filed the written reply along with certain documents vide their letter dated 22.02.2023. 6. However, the narrow scope of the present appeal is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly invoked the bar of time period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the appellant to present the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) within normal period of two months. 7. Since the statue itself provides for condonation of delay of period within 30 days of the normal period of two months, to my opinion, it was the statutory duty of the appellant to seek condonation thereof while filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Apparently and admittedly no such application was filed before him. The application seeking condonation could also have been filed along with appeal. There is absolutely no reason as to why the said application was not simultaneously being filed. I refrain myself to accept the submission that Commissioner (Appeals) should have called upon the appellant for inviting the applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by the reason of legal injury. However, every legal remedy must be kept alive for legislatively fixed period of time. 9. In the present case, as there is no sufficient cause shown which could reasonably explain the delay occurred in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the normal period of two months that too without filing application seeking condonation of said delay. I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge which has been passed relying upon the adjudication of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC), wherein it is held as follows: "8. The Commissio....