2019 (7) TMI 495 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 478 days and 435 days in filing the appeals - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to condone delay - HELD THAT - The issue whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has powers to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days, as provided under the Act, stands settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT . It stands held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no powers and jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days, after expiry of 60 days, which is the normal period for preferring the appeal. Inasmuch as in the present appeals, the delay is more than 30 days, there are no justifiable reasons to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of limitation
- Commissioner (Appeals) powers to condone delay beyond 30 days

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the dismissal of appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the ground of limitation due to significant delays of 478 days and 435 days in filing the appeals. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited the lack of authority to condone delays beyond the prescribed 30-day period.

2. The primary issue revolves around the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) to extend the period for filing appeals beyond the stipulated 30 days. The judgment references a pivotal decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (2008) 221 ELT 163 (SC), which clearly establishes that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the jurisdiction to condone delays exceeding 30 days after the standard 60-day appeal period has lapsed.

3. The appellant did not contest the delay in filing the appeals, leading to the conclusion that the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied the legal principle established by the Supreme Court. Given that the delays in the present appeals exceeded 30 days, the judgment finds no valid reasons to intervene with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and consequently rejects both appeals.

4. The judgment, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, reaffirms the legal position regarding the limitations on the Commissioner (Appeals)'s authority to condone delays in filing appeals beyond the prescribed timeframe. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the limited scope for exceptions in such cases, as elucidated by the judicial precedent cited.