2025 (3) TMI 1399 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - whether the appeal filed by the appellant was within the permissible time limit as prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994? - HELD THAT - The fact of the receipt of the order is not in dispute. It is not even the case of the Appellant that the Order of the Adjudicating Authority was not received by the Appellant on 29.07.2022 and Appeal was to be filed within 60 days i.e. up to 29.09.2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) chould have condoned the delay further by one month i.e. upto 29.10.2022. However the Appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) on or after that date. That being so Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT he could not have condoned the delay and dismissed the Appeal. The Appellant had filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the period which could have been condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. Judgment relied upon by Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly laid down that Commissioner (Appeals) has no Authority to condone the delay beyond 30 days. Conclusion - The appeal is filed beyond the permissible period and could not be entertained. Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue considered in this judgment is whether the appeal filed by the appellant was within the permissible time limit as prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. Additionally, the issue of whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had the authority to condone the delay beyond the statutory period was examined. The appellant also raised concerns regarding the denial of natural justice due to the lack of a personal hearing before the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Timeliness of the Appeal Filing

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, stipulates that an appeal must be filed within two months of receiving the order from the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) may condone a delay of up to 30 additional days if sufficient cause is shown. The Supreme Court's decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur, established that delays beyond this period cannot be condoned.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the appellant received the order on 29.07.2022, and the appeal should have been filed by 29.09.2022. Even with the maximum allowable extension, the deadline would have been 29.10.2022. The appeal was filed on 30.12.2022, beyond the permissible period.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant acknowledged the receipt date of the order and the subsequent filing date of the appeal, which confirmed the delay.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the statutory time limits and the Supreme Court's interpretation to conclude that the appeal was time-barred.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the delay was due to the Chartered Accountant's failure to file the appeal timely. However, the Tribunal held that statutory limits are strict and cannot be extended due to third-party negligence.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period, and the delay could not be condoned under the statute.

2. Denial of Natural Justice

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principles of natural justice require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case. The appellant cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Hitech Sweet Water Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized the need for personal hearings.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's claim of not being granted a personal hearing before the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds.

- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant did not receive a personal hearing, which they argued was a denial of natural justice.

- Application of Law to Facts: While the Tribunal recognized the importance of personal hearings, it found that the statutory time limits were clear and binding, thus limiting the scope for considering the merits of the case.

- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to override the statutory limits based on procedural fairness arguments.

- Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the statutory time limits took precedence over procedural fairness concerns in this context.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute."

- Core Principles Established: The statutory time limits for filing appeals are strict and cannot be extended beyond the period explicitly allowed by the statute. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, do not apply to extend these limits.

- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The appeal was dismissed as time-barred, and the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the statutory framework and the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period and could not be entertained. The statutory framework and binding judicial precedents were decisive in determining the outcome of the appeal.