Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone service-tax appeal delays beyond the statutory one-month extension.

The appeal challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 614-ST/APPL/LKO/2023 dated 23 August 2023, by which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant’s appeal as time-barred without examining its merits.

The dispute concerned a service-tax demand allegedly raised against PAN AYIPS2047P, whereas the appellant, M/s Raj Kumar Rastogi HUF, asserted that the relevant HUF had PAN ADTPR3892B and that the disputed PAN did not belong either to Raj Kumar Rastogi individually or to his HUF.

The appellant also submitted that Raj Kumar Rastogi was approximately 78 years old and that medical exigencies had prevented timely filing of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), seeking condonation of delay.

The Revenue supported the findings of the lower authorities.

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had jurisdiction under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 to condone delay beyond the additional one-month period prescribed in the proviso?

Whether the appellant’s assertion regarding the incorrect PAN and the medical condition of the HUF’s karta justified condonation of the delay and examination of the appeal on merits?

The Tribunal applied Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994, under which an appeal against a service-tax adjudication order must be filed within two months of receipt of the order, with the Commissioner (Appeals) having power to allow filing within a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown.

Relying principally on Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), the Tribunal held that the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the statutorily permitted additional period and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to override the prescribed statutory limit.

The Tribunal also referred to Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. v. Special Deputy Collector, order dated 8 April 2024 in SLP (C) No. 31248 of 2018, for the principles that limitation reflects public policy, that condonation is discretionary, and that merits are ordinarily irrelevant while deciding an application for condonation.

It further relied on Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.), which emphasizes that an unsubstantiated explanation cannot justify condonation once the statutory period has expired.

The Tribunal found that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 85(3A) and beyond the further one-month period that the Commissioner (Appeals) was statutorily empowered to condone.

Applying Singh Enterprises, it held that the Commissioner (Appeals), being a statutory authority, could not extend the limitation period beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant’s reliance on age, medical exigencies, and the alleged PAN mismatch could not enlarge that statutory power.

Consistent with Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal treated the merits of the underlying demand—including the PAN objection—as irrelevant to the question whether the delayed appeal could legally be entertained.

The decision in Glaxo Smith Kline reinforced that a delay beyond the statutory period cannot be excused without a legally acceptable and substantiated explanation.

Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have correctly rejected the appeal as time-barred.

The alleged PAN discrepancy and medical circumstances did not warrant interference with the limitation finding.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the order rejecting the appellant’s first appeal as time-barred was upheld.