TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax Appeal No. 50546-50547 of 2015 (SM) - - - Dated:- 15-12-2015 - B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri G S Bisht, Adv For the Respondent : Shri D K Sinha, AR (DR) ORDER Per B Ravichandran These two appeals are by the appellant against order-in-appeal dated 17/11/2014 of Commissioner (Appeals), Lucknow. The appellants were engaged in providing taxable service of Management, Maintenance or repair. Proceedings were initiated against them for non-payment of service tax. The Original Authority after due process passed two orders dated 25/05/2011 confirming service tax demand of ₹ 1,72,268/- and ₹ 4,90,454/-. Various penalties were also imposed on the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned AR submitted that there is more than 800 days of delay in filing both these appeals and there is no provision in law for admitting such appeal. The Tribunal has no powers to direct the lower Appellate Authority to consider such appeal in view of the clear time limit mentioned in the Act itself. He further relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) in Central Excise matters held that when the statute prescribes particular period of limitation, condonation is not possible beyond such period. The learned AR submits that there are many o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another vs. MST, Katiji and others in Civil appeal No. 460 of 1987 was again dealing with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 with reference to compensation to be paid on land acquisition. The Hon'ble High Court of Jammu Kashmir in the case of Union of India vs. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 825 (J K) was dealing with delay in filing the application before the Hon'ble Courts. The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Balaji Alloys vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 260 (P H) was dealing with delay of 132 days in filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a particular period of limitation, the court cannot direct condonation as that would render a specific provisions providing for limitation rather otiose. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-1556-HC-AHM.-CX.-LB held that there is no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days as provided by the proviso to Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 194. the provisions of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, relevant to the present case of service tax are similar to said Central Excise provisions. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in Shiv Sahil Construction Pvt. Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2479-HC-JHARKHAND-ST- held that there is no power to condone delay beyond condonable period under Section 85 (3A) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
