9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, as are related to the issue, read as under :- "SECTION 85. Appeals to the [Commissioner) of Central Excise (Appeals). [(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise] may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 3A) An decision or order of such adjudicating authority, made on and after the Finance Bill, 2012 receives the atsent of the President, relating to service tax, interest or penalty under this Chapter: Provided that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of two months, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month." 6.2 A plain reading of the above provisions of law reveals that in the Service tax matters the appeal is to be filed within 02 months of the receipt of the order of the adjudicating authority. In deserving case such period of appeal may be extended by further one month by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6.3 Juxtaposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cally held that, any delay beyond the extended period of thirty days after expiry of normal period of sixty days, cannot be condoned since the Statue does not permit and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply. The decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises is binding." 2. The Appellant have filed this appeal challenging the above order which has been passed following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Singh Enterprises V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC). Though the Appellant has made a request for adjournment, I find that the issue is in very narrow compass and could be decided on the basis of the facts/evidences available on record. Accordingly, the appeal has been taken up for decision. 3. In their appeal, Appellant has challenged the impugned order stating as follows:- 1.1 That the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. He has written the Order of Adjudicating Authority was received on 29.7.2022 and appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was to be filed within 60 days i.e. upto 29.9.2022. The condonation of delay of 30days as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1 year and 30 days in filing appeal HELD: Appeal filed by aggrieved persons ought to be decided in merits on all circumstances - If reasons stated for delay, acceptable, then Courts may consider the same and condone delay by providing opportunity to aggrieved persons and adjudicate issues on merits and in accordance with law In instant case, appeal filed beyond period of limitation because Writ Appeal was pending before Division Bench of High Court during relevant point of time and pre-deposit not made by petitioner as Bank Accounts of petitioner were frozen In view of factum established, impugned order rejecting appeal, quashed - Petitioner directed to comply with condition of pre-deposit as contemplated under Central Excise Act, within period of four weeks from date of receipt of copy of order In event of receiving appeal, respondent shall entertain appeal and dispose of appeal on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to all parties concerned Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (paras 5, 6, 7, 8] 1.3 That the Show Cause Notice dated 31.12.2020 was given to the Chartered Accountant (consultant of the bank) for preparing & filing reply. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been sufficient cause of delay in filing appeal for which appellant may not be fastened with service tax, intt. & penalty and appeal may kindly be heard on merits. In support of above, the appellant referred & relied the following judgments:- * Raj Construction Co. Vs Commissioner (Appeals) of CE, Jaipur-I reported in 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 156 (Tri.. Del. * CCE, Mumbai Vs P.N. Writer and Co. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2019 (367) E.L.T. 778 (Bom.) * f Yapp India Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE & ST, Pune-I reported in 2019 (365) E.L.T. 109 (Tri. Mumbai) 4. Heard Ms. Chitra Srivastava learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 5. I find 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 Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he expiry of 30 days period. 9. Learned counsel for the Appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C.s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court in appropriate cases condoned the delay on sufficient cause being shown. 10. Sufficient cause is an expression which is found in various statutes. It essentially means as adequate or enough. There cannot be any straitjacket formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused in taking steps. In the instant case, the explanation offered for the abnormal delay of nearly 20 months is that the Appellant concern was practically closed after 1998 and it was only opened for some short period. From the application for condonation of delay, it appears that the Appellant has categorically accepted that on receipt of order the same was immediately handed over to the consultant for filing an appeal. If that is so, the plea that because of lack of experience in business there was delay does not stand to be reason. I.T.C.s case (supra) was rendered taking note of the peculiar background facts of the case. In that case there was no law declared by this Court that even though the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
