TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 39/2021 dated 20.10.2021 vide which the service tax amounting to Rs.10,68,225/- along with interest and the appropriate penalties was proposed alleging that the appellant is engaged in rendering taxable service. But on the amount of consideration received, during the Financial Year 2016-17, the service tax has not been paid. The said proposal was confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 03/2024 dated 27.03.2024. Appeal against the said order has been dismissed on the ground of limitation only. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Priyanka Goel, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri V.J. Saharan, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur reported as 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC). With these submissions, the appeal is prayed to be dismissed: 5. Having heard the rival contentions. Foremost the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) while holding the appeal before him as time barred are perused, as below: 4.6 I also find that the appellant also stated that they consulted with profession who himself is occupied with other assignment and because of that there is delay in filing of appeal also matter pertains to pre-GST period and they also needed time to collect information and that all circumstance caused delay in filing the appeal. They also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been considered as the relevant date for reckoning of the period of limitation. At this stage, we have perused Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The said section reads as follows: 85. Appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). - (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Central Excise may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). (2) Every appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (3) An appeal shall be presented within three months from the date of receipt of the decision or order of such adjudicating authority, relating to service tax, interest o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hapter, in hearing the appeals and making orders under this section, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) shall exercise the same powers and follow the same procedure as he exercise and follows in hearing the appeals and making orders under the Central Excise Act, 1944 . 7. The perusal reveals that the relevant date for limitation to begin is the date on which the order to be challenged is received by the person aggrieved there from. 8. At this stage, I have perused the chronology of the event relevant for the present purpose: (i) Order in original dated 27.03.2024 (ii) Order was dispatched by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner as per dispatch no. 536 dated 02.04.2024 (mentioned on the Order-in-Original....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the appellant. From this discussion it stands clear that the delay which has occurred in the present appeal was within the period condonable by Commissioner (Appeals). The reason cited for the said delay is: (i) Time was required for getting the old service tax password reset. This could be done only on 18.06.2024 (ii) Certain documents of the erstwhile era were also to be collected. 9.1 It is also coming as the apparent fact that on the day the password was reset the same day itself appellant had put the appeal in dispatch to be filed/receipt in the office of Commissioner (Appeals). The said perusal rather reflects the bona fide on part of the appellant and the due diligence to get the appropriate remedy of the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner (Appeals) is to be filed within 60 days of receipt of the order by Original Adjudicating Authority. In addition, it mandates that the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay on sufficient cause being shown but not beyond the period of 30 days from the expiry of said period of 60 days. In view of the said statutory mandate, I am of the opinion that Commissioner (Appeals) had no option to condone the delay which involves more than 90 days from the date of receipt of the order challenged before him. Seen from that angle, there seems no infirmity in the order under challenge. 9. Further basic principal of adjudication is that none shall be condemned unheard and that the hyper-technical approach may not be taken. It has....