Commissioner (Appeals) Can’t Condone Delay Beyond 30 Days: CESTAT
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), comprising Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Shri P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member), has held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone a delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of the initial 60-day limitation period under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by M/s M. N. Singh, finding that it was filed well beyond the permissible period and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly declined to entertain it.
The dispute arose out of an adjudication order dated 28.02.2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jabalpur, confirming service tax liability along with interest and penalty on the appellant, a registered partnership firm engaged in coal transportation services. According to the acknowledgment on record, the adjudication order was received by one of the partners, Aniruddha Pratap Singh, on 07.04.2017. However, the appeal under Section 85 was not filed until 18.10.2017 — well beyond the 60 days allowed under the statute and the further condonable period of 30 days.
The appellant firm, through its other partner Sangram Singh, sought to justify the delay by filing an application for condonation. It was claimed that although the order was received by Aniruddha Pratap Singh, he never communicated it to Sangram Singh due to internal disputes between them. Sangram Singh stated that he came to know of the adjudication order only after the Jurisdictional Range Officer sent a recovery letter dated 31.07.2017. Following a visit to the range office, he was allegedly provided with a duplicate copy of the order on 03.08.2017, after which the appeal was filed.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, found this explanation unsatisfactory and observed that under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, the appeal had to be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the order, and at most within a further period of one month if sufficient cause for delay was shown. In the present case, even going by the version of the appellant that the order was received by one of the partners on 07.04.2017, the last date for filing the appeal, including the extended 30-day condonable period, would have expired on 06.07.2017. Since the appeal was filed more than three months later on 18.10.2017, it was clearly barred by limitation.
When the matter came up before the CESTAT, the Bench noted that the explanation offered by the appellant about the breakdown in communication between the partners was not supported by any substantive evidence. While the appellant did rely on a police complaint filed against Aniruddha Pratap Singh, the Tribunal found that it was not pursued further and no legal restraint was shown to exist that would have prevented Sangram Singh from accessing firm records or knowing about the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that mere internal discord between partners cannot justify non-compliance with statutory timelines.
The Tribunal further observed that the acknowledgment of receipt of the adjudication order on 07.04.2017 was signed by Aniruddha Pratap Singh in his capacity as a partner of the firm. In the eyes of law, such service of order on one partner is binding on the firm. There was no evidence on record to establish that the firm was legally prevented from filing the appeal in time.
While examining the limitation provision, the Tribunal referred to Section 85(3A), which states that an appeal must be filed within two months of the order, with a further grace period of one month that can be condoned on sufficient cause. The Tribunal categorically held that this extended period of 30 days is the maximum that can be condoned. There is no provision under the Act for entertaining an appeal after the expiry of 90 days in total.
To reinforce its conclusion, the Tribunal cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2018 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)], which has been followed in several decisions thereafter. The Court had held that appellate authorities cannot entertain appeals filed beyond the maximum condonable period, as they are creatures of statute and have no inherent powers of condonation beyond what the statute permits. The Tribunal also referred to its own decisions in Diamond Construction [Service Tax Appeal No. 51592 of 2016] and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Uttam Sucrotech International Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2011 (264) E.L.T. 502 (Del.)], both of which reiterated the binding nature of statutory timelines.
Concluding that the delay in filing was inordinate and unjustified, the Tribunal affirmed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the statutory period. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the impugned order as legally valid. The appeal was thus rejected on the ground of limitation, and no relief was granted to the appellant firm.
Appearance
Shri Prashant Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Jaya Kumari, Authorized Representative for the Department
Cause Title: M/s. M N Singh V. Join Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax
Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 51530 of 2018
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta [President] , Hon’ble Mr. P.V. Subba Rao [Member (Technical)]
[Read/Download order]
