CESTAT Dismisses Taxpayer’s ₹24.6 Lakh Service-Tax Appeal As Time-Barred After Order Was Pasted At His Registered Premises

The adjudicating authority confirmed service tax demand of ₹24,60,044, interest and penalties against the appellant. The Order-in-Original was dated 11 March 2023.

After registered post was returned undelivered, the department stated that it served the order by affixing it at the appellant’s registered premises under a panchnama dated 27 April 2023.

The appellant claimed that he first learned of the order and obtained a copy on 29 January 2024, and filed an appeal on 28 February 2024.

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed that appeal as time-barred, finding that service had occurred on 27 April 2023 and that it could not condone delay beyond the statutory additional period of one month. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal to be filed within two months of receipt of the adjudicating authority’s decision or order and permits the Commissioner (Appeals), for sufficient cause, to allow filing within a further one month; the statutory limit does not permit condonation beyond that additional period.

The Tribunal applied Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), for the rule that the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the period expressly permitted by statute.

It also referred to Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. …, order dated 8 April 2024, on the principles governing limitation and discretionary condonation, and Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.), on the need to substantiate the explanation for delay.

In assessing service, the Tribunal relied on the departmental communication and panchnama and referred to Section 77(e) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The Tribunal found that the appellant continued to use the same address as the registered premises and that departmental correspondence sent to that address had also been returned.

It accepted the departmental report that, after postal service failed, the Order-in-Original was affixed at those premises under a panchnama dated 27 April 2023. It therefore rejected the appellant’s assertion that receipt occurred only on 29 January 2024.

Since the appeal was filed on 28 February 2024, well beyond the two-month filing period and the further one-month period available for condonation, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to entertain it; the merits of the service-tax demand were not determined.

It found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.