High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. SUDHAKAR & G.M. AKBAR ALI, JJ.
M/s. Kerala Roadways Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Others
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2398 of 2014 & M.P.No. 1 of 2014
Decided on: 04-09-2014
Delay Condonation - Service Tax - The court dismissed the appeal as the appellant failed to provide any application for condonation of delay, and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not entertain the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a private limited company registered as a Goods Transport Agency, failed to show income from hamaii and handling charges in their returns and did not pay service tax on the said amount. The Assessing Authority issued a show cause notice, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) due to delay beyond the condonable period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide any application for condonation of delay, and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not entertain the appeal. As a result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the appellant to provide an application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of any application for condonation of delay, which rendered the appeal inadmissible.
Final Decision: The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and no costs were awarded. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 was also dismissed.
R. Sudhakar, J.
1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order dated 30.9.2013 made in Final Order No.40459 of 2013 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The assessee/appellant is a private limited company registered under the category "Goods Transport Agency". At the time of audit by the Internal Audit, the company's records were audited and it was found from the trial balance that the assessee had collected an amount of Rs.92,57,001/- as hamaii charges and Rs.8,29,777/-as handling charges for the period from 01.01.2005 to 31.03.2006. This income was not shown in the returns and had not paid service tax on the said amount. Hence, the Assessing Authority issued show cause notice on 31.10.08. In response to the said show cause notice, the assessee, in their written submission dated 12.9.2007 had stated that the value shown in the show cause notice is nothing but reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by them on behalf of their customers towards the service received by them.
The Assessing Authority, however, rejected the plea of the assessee, thereby demanded service tax together with penalty by order dated 31.10.2008.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Authority, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 07.09.2011, i.e, with a delay of 2 years 6 months and 27 days and apparently, the appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, as the same has been filed beyond the condonable period. As against the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which upholds the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), relying on the decision reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC) (Singh Enterprises V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur), wherein it was held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. As against the said order of the Tribunal, the assesee has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the materials placed before this Court.
5. We are surprised and pained to note that the appellant in this case though claims that he filed an application for condonation of delay, we find no such application has been enclosed in the typed set of papers or there is no reference in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was an application for condonation of delay. Even assuming that it is within the condonable period, in the absence of any such application seeking condonation of delay, we fail to see how the Commissioner (appeals) could entertain the appeal. In fact, there was no application even before the Tribunal for the condonation of delay. Hence, we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is also dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.