TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 592
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 04 days in filing the present appeal stands condoned. Main Case (O&M) 3. This Central Excise Appeal (CEA) is directed against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the 'Tribunal') dated 26.06.2025, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 4. In order to appreciate the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal, the undisputed facts of the case require narration at the outset. 5. Undisputedly, the appellant is engaged in providing architectural services and is registered with the Service Tax Department. The appellant has been filing regular ST-3 returns showing the turnove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded period of limitation was bad in law and that the competent authority was required to pass the order-in-original within a period of one year from the issuance of the SCN. Since the order was passed beyond such period, it is contended that in law, it ought to be treated as invalid. 7. This plea of the appellant has not found favour with either the appellate authority or the Tribunal. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the provisions of Section 73(4B) of the Finance Act, 1994 (for short, the 'Act of 1994'), whereby Section 11 of the Central Excise Act has been amended. Section 73(4B) reads as under:- "(4B) The Central Excise Officer shall determine the amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong in dragging the proceedings before the adjudicating authority, and if such a claim of the appellant is accepted, it would amount to putting a premium on the appellant's own default. 14. The facts, as noticed above, are not in dispute. 15. It is undisputed that the appellant is registered under the Service Tax Act and has been submitting returns showing no turnover. It is also undisputed that in the returns submitted before the Income Tax Authorities, an income of Rs. 86,21,611/- was shown during the Assessment Year 2015-2016. It is on this factual premise that the appellant was confronted with these facts and his explan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proviso to sub-section (4A), within one year from the date of notice. 18. The intendment is clearly to curb executive lethargy in concluding proceedings initiated in accordance with law. The provision is not intended to be used as a thumb rule preventing the Central Excise authorities from passing orders despite the existence of justifiable reasons for the delay occasioned in this regard. 19. In the facts of the present case, it is undisputed that the Department issued repeated notices to the appellant, which were not responded to. The first notice of personal hearing was issued on 19.02.2021, which was not responded to. The second notice dated 03.12.2021 was also not replied. It was only in response to the last notice dated 18.01.202....