Failure to establish sufficient cause justifies dismissal of a delayed service-tax appeal.

During an audit, the Department alleged that the appellant had made delayed payment of service tax for April 2014 to March 2016 without paying the applicable interest.

A show-cause notice dated 19 February 2020 proposed recovery of interest amounting to ₹23,26,594 under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant neither filed a reply nor appeared for personal hearing, and the adjudicating authority confirmed the interest demand by Order-in-Original No. 85/ST/Kota-H/2021 dated 18 February 2021.

In the appellant’s earlier appeal, the matter was remanded for providing the interest-calculation details and obtaining details of payments made by the service recipient.

On remand, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the interest demand.

The Commissioner (Appeals) thereafter rejected the appeal as time-barred.

The present appeal challenged the subsequent Order-in-Appeal No. 280(AK)ST/JDR/2024 dated 3 July 2024, which dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed period.

The appellant did not appear before the Tribunal despite several opportunities and warnings that the next opportunity would be final.

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appellant’s appeal as barred by limitation under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994?

Whether the appellant had established sufficient cause for condonation of the delay beyond the prescribed appellate period?

Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994 requires an appeal against an order relating to service tax, interest, or penalty to be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

The proviso permits the Commissioner (Appeals), upon being satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely filing, to allow presentation within a further period of one month; the condonable period is therefore statutorily limited.

Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 authorises recovery of interest on delayed payment of service tax.

Under Section 85(4) and (5), the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to adjudicate the appeal in accordance with the statutory appellate framework and procedure applicable to appeals under the Central Excise Act.

The Tribunal observed that the relevant appeal had been filed beyond the statutory period of two months.

Although the Commissioner (Appeals) could condone delay within the additional one-month period, such condonation depended upon the appellant demonstrating sufficient cause.

The impugned order recorded that the appellant had not furnished any explanation or supporting documents to justify the delay.

The appellant also failed to appear before the Tribunal or produce any material establishing sufficient cause, despite repeated opportunities.

In the absence of any explanation or documentary support, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)’s rejection of the appeal on limitation grounds.

The impugned Order-in-Appeal was upheld, and the service tax appeal was dismissed.