2025 (6) TMI 1169 - AT - Service Tax

Non-maintainability owing to delay in filing of appeal beyond the period prescribed in section 86 of Finance Act 1994 - failure to comply with the requirement of pre-deposit stipulated in section 35F of Central Excise Act 1944 as made applicable under section 83 thereof to Finance Act 1994 - HELD THAT - The appeal has not been disposed off on merits but dismissed at the threshold on two counts viz. for failing to make the prescribed pre-deposit and for not having filed the appeal within the period stipulated in Finance Act 1994. Insofar as the first of the deficiencies is concerned the appellant has since made the pre-deposit to have appeal admitted in the Tribunal. Accordingly that deficiency has ceased to exist even insofar as the first appellate authority is concerned. The appellant has placed on record therein request for the order and its receipt on 28th August 2023. In the light of the finding supra and the submission of the documents it appears that dismissal of the appeal without offering an opportunity to the appellant herein for submission of the relevant of documents was inappropriate. Matter remanded back to the first appellate authority to determine the issue on merits after examining the claim made by the appellant on compliance with time-lines prescribed in section 86 of Finance Act 1994 - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT Mumbai) addressed an appeal against the dismissal of a tax liability challenge of Rs. 1,22,73,587 under sections 70, 73, 75, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for delay beyond the prescribed period under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Key points include:- The Tribunal noted the appeal was dismissed without adjudicating merits, solely on procedural grounds: delay in filing and non-payment of pre-deposit.- The appellant subsequently complied with the pre-deposit requirement, removing that deficiency.- The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's claim of delayed receipt of the impugned order (received after 169 days) due to lack of documentary evidence, holding the appeal time-barred.- The Tribunal found this dismissal "without offering an opportunity to the appellant... for submission of the relevant documents was inappropriate."- The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the first appellate authority to examine the appellant's explanation and evidence regarding compliance with the timelines under section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.- The appeal was allowed by way of remand.Thus, the Tribunal emphasized procedural fairness, holding that dismissal on delay grounds requires proper opportunity to substantiate claims, and remanded for merits consideration after timeline compliance verification.