Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 257 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay of 29 days in filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - sufficient reasons not there to condone the delay - HELD THAT:- The Order-in-Original in the present case was passed on 31st March, 2022 and the same is mentioned to have been received by the appellant on 15.04.2022. There is no dispute about the said date of receipt of order by the appellant. The appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was admittedly filed on 15.07.2022. No doubt, in terms of section 85 of the Finance Act, the appeal was not filed within 60 days of the receipt of order. However, it has apparently been filed before expiry of 90 days from the said date. As per said section 85 itself, the Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to condone the delay within 30 days provided the delay has been sufficiently explained. It is observed that the application as has been considered by Commissioner (Appeals) apparently has no sufficient explanation for the impugned delay. However, it is also clear that the application does not pertain to the impugned issue/case. The reason given in the said application is about the order of cancellation of registration of the appellant. Whereas the Order-in-Original in the present case, which was appealed before Commissioner (Appeals) is about confirmation of demand of service tax alongwith the interest and the imposition of penalty of equal amount. This particular perusal is sufficient to hold that the question of insufficiency of explanation is absolutely irrelevant when it does not pertain to the issue involved. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VERSUS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT] that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late, it is held that appellant herein, at-least be given an opportunity to put-forth the appropriate application. This is a fit case to be remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to look into the proper application of the appellant while exercising its power/discretion under section 85 of the Finance Act - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|