The appellate authority's power to condone delay in filing an appeal is limited to statutory provisions, emphasizing strict adherence to the prescribed time limits.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jha for the Appellant and Mr. Adik for the Respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30 September 2020 made by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that he has no power to condone the delay beyond one month of the initially prescribed period of two months under the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 and the Tribunal’s order dated 10 May 2023 refusing to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Mr. Jha urges the formulation of the following questions, which, according to him, are substantial questions of law:-

“(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the Tribunal had power u/s 35C of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 read along with section 86(7) of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 to condone delay in filing of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) beyond the one month period provided in proviso to section 85(3A).

(b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the decisions of the Co-ordinate benches.”

4. Mr. Jha refers to Section 86(7) of the FINANCE ACT , 1994, and based on this, relies on the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 35B of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944. He submits that there are no limits imposed on the Tribunal regarding any maximum delay period it can condone, provided sufficient cause is shown. Accordingly, he submits that in this case, the Tribunal should have evaluated the sufficient cause shown by the Appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) and condoned the delay of hardly 17 days. He submitted that there was more than sufficient cause justifying condonation.

5. Mr. Jha also referred to the provisions in sub-section (1) of Section 35C of the CENTRAL EXCISE ACT , 1944 to submit that the Tribunal has extensive powers to interfere with orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and this would include the power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994.

6. Mr. Jha finally submitted that there were decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal directing condonation of delay by the Commissioner (Appeals), even though the delay was beyond the period prescribed in the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the FINANCE ACT , 1994. He submitted that non-consideration of the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches is a good ground to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision in this case.

7. Mr. Adik learned counsel for the Respondent submits that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, and in any event, such questions must be answered against the Appellant given the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681 and Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. WP (L) No. 4053 of 2020 decided on 25 February 2021 decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

8. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

9. In this case, the Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Pune-II Commissionerate, issued the Order-in-Original on 15 November 2019, which the Appellant received on 30 November 2019. The Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) only on 17 March 2020, along with an application for condonation