2026-VIL-192-CESTAT-MUM-ST

SERVICE TAX CESTAT Cases

Service Tax – Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 – Demand of tax – Filing of appeal – Dismissal on ground of limitation – Appellants are engaged in providing Information technology design and development services – On basis of data received from income tax department, Revenue issued show cause notice alleging that applicable service tax at rate of 12.36% had not been paid by Appellants – Assistant Commissioner confirmed demand proposed in show cause notice – Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeal filed by Appellants on ground of limitation – Whether impugned order rejecting appeal as having been filed beyond time limit prescribed under Section 85 of the Act is correct or not, in terms of facts of present case – HELD – Appellants being aggrieved by Order-in-Original passed by Assistant Commissioner have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on 28-3-2023. Appeal should have been preferred by Appellants before Commissioner (Appeals) within 22-3-2023, by calculating the normal appeal period of two months from date of receipt of order with which they were aggrieved with. In terms of proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) can condone delay for a further period of one month, if Appellant shows that they were prevented by sufficient cause from presenting appeal within aforesaid period of two months. Reasons claimed by Appellants such as recreation of service tax login details from departmental portal and making arrangements for pre-deposit in view of change in name of Appellant company qualify for being ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay. There is no merits in impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting appeal filed by Appellants on ground of non-filing of appeal before prescribed time limit. Impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside – Appeal allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page