TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30-10-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. M.S. Hiremath, Consultant For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal being time barred. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in Erection, Commissioning and Installation services and during the period from 2011-2012 to 2015-16 they had provided in civil engineering works relating to erection of transmission towers and liners. They had not paid the service tax on the consideration of ₹ 3,47,774/- received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 7.4.2017 and the due date for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A) was 6.6.2017 but the appeal was filed before Commissioner (A) on 30.8.2017 and in the process, there was a delay of 85 days which is beyond the condonable period of 30 days which the Commissioner (A) has got power to condone. 4. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal on maintainability because there was a delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. She further submitted that Commissioner (A) does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of 60 days, which is the time prescribed for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A). 5. After ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. Since the delay in the present case was beyond the condonable limit, therefore, the Commissioner (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time bar by relying upon the decision of the apex court rendered in the case of Singh Enterprises and I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, which is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the appellant. (Operative portion of the Order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
