Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

Ravi Prasad Videos vs Commissioner Of Service Tax

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal26 February 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is filed beyond the two-month period prescribed for appeal, and beyond the further one-month period within which the Commissioner may condone delay, the appeal is time-barred; the case then falls outside the condonation power under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, and the appeal to the Tribunal arising from the Commissioner's order of dismissal on limitation is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI

Appeal No.ST/S/42099/2013 & ST/42243/2013

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.197 to 201/2013 (MST) dt. 24.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai-I]

Ravi Prasad Videos Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri K.Kothandan, Advocate For the Appellant

Shri K.P.Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM :

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of Hearing/Decision : 26.02.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40230/2015

Per D.N. Panda

Ld. counsel prays for adjournment of the matter. Record reveals that the appeal which came before Tribunal against the order dt. 24.7.2013 passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is the order of dismissal on the ground of time bar. Ld. DR explains that the order appealed before learned Commissioner (Appeals) was received by the appellant on 3.12.2012, and it ought to have appealed before that authority within 2 months from the date of such receipt i.e. 2.2.2013. But that was filed belatedly. Thus appeal came before him on 20.3.2013. Such a case is not governed by Section 85 (3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 for condonation of delay. Before learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal was not even within his discretionary period of one month after expiry of above two month's period. When the discretionary period ended on 2.3.2013, appellant crossing that limit and filing the appeal on 20.3.2013, failed before him on limitation.

2. Aforesaid calendar of events brought out by Ld. DR was not controverted by the appellant. That is also borne by record. Therefore the appeal not being maintainable being barred by limitation calls for dismissal before Tribunal. The stay application as well as appeal filed before Tribunal are dismissed not being maintainable.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. PANDA) TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

gs 2

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free