2013 (1) TMI 320 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal not filed within the period of limitation - appeal submitted to the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax instead of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) - Held that - Appellant had filed the appeal and submitted the same in the office of Commissioner of Service Tax Ahmedabad at 5th Floor while the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) is situated at 7th floor in the same building Central Excise Bhawan. The appellant had in fact served a copy of such an appeal to the office of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner Service Tax and there is a signature of the person receiving such an appeal. Thus such a small procedural infraction should not come in the way of substantive rights of the appellant for considering the appeal on merits. FAA has erred in not considering the appeal on merits but deciding the same on technicalities thus set-aside the impugned order and hold that appellant had in fact filed the appeal on 13.02.2008 which is within the period of limitation may be before the wrong forum - restore the stay petition and appeal in the files of Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeal) to its original number with directions to consider the same on merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal filed beyond the period of limitation.
2. Filing appeal in the wrong forum.
3. Consideration of appeal on merits.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a stay petition against the order in appeal No. 276/2011(STC) dated 24.10.2011. The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation as per Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant claimed to have filed the appeal on time but mistakenly submitted it to the Commissioner of Service Tax rather than the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the appeal was indeed filed within the limitation period. The Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded to take up the appeal for disposal.

2. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had submitted the appeal to the office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad, located on the 5th floor, instead of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) on the 7th floor in the same building. Despite this procedural error, the Tribunal observed that the appellant had served a copy of the appeal to the office of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax, with a signature of the recipient. The Tribunal held that this minor procedural mistake should not hinder the appellant's substantive rights. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that the first appellate authority erred in not considering the appeal on its merits and deciding it based on technicalities. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits and dispose of it following the principles of natural justice.

3. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering appeals on their merits rather than dismissing them based solely on technical errors. The Tribunal's decision highlights the significance of substantive rights and the need to ensure procedural fairness in the adjudication of appeals.