Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Godwin Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Meerut-I on 14 January, 2020
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Service Tax Appeal No.70021 of 2019
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MRT/EXCUS/000/APPL-MRT/290-291-
2018-19 dated 05/09/2018 passed by Commissioner of Central Goods &
Service Tax (Appeals), Meerut)
M/s Goodwin Constructions Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant
(NH-58, Baghpat Crossing, Delhi
Dehradoon-Bye-pass, Meerut, U.P.)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Central Goods &
Service Tax, Meerut ....Respondent
(Meerut, U.P.) APPEARANCE:
Ms. Sanyukta Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Gyanendra Kumar Tripathi, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO. - 70098 / 2020 Date of Hearing : 14 January, 2020 Date of Decision : 14 January, 2020 PER: ARCHANA WADHWA The appeal stands rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) by observing as under:-
"6. I have carefully gone through the facts and records of the appeals as well as the submissions made by the appellants and the respondent. I find that the appellant No.2 has also enclosed a simple letter dated 22/02/2018 with the appeal requesting condonation of delay in filing of
2 Service Tax Appeal No.70021 of 2019 the appeal. I find that the impugned order was served upon the appellant No.2 on 31/05/2017. However, the appeal, in form ST-4, was filed on 22/02/2018. An appeal against the impugned order was therefore required to be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the impugned order i.e. by 31/07/2017 as laid down in Section 85 (3A) ibid. In terms of proviso to the said sub-section (3A), the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone the delay of up to one month subject to his satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal. The law does not provide for the condonation of delay beyond the said period of one month. I find that the above appeal has been filed after a delay of more than six months. The delay in presenting the appeal beyond the period of one month cannot be condoned in terms of proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 ibid as has also been held by the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal, in the case of Zenith Rubber Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Ahmedabad [2017 (49) S.T.R. 400 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] based on clarification given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises vs. CCE, Jamshedpur [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)]. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be rejected on the ground of limitation of time for filing of the appeal. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, no discussion on the merits of the appeals is warranted."
2. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that law stands decided against them by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs CCE Jamshedpur reported at 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (SC). There is no other contra judgment on the said issue. As such, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) Sd/-
(Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) Sd/-
(Anil G. Shakkarwar) Member (Technical) Lks