CESTAT Dismisses Service Tax Appeal Filed After 20-Month Delay, Calls Assessee’s Plea “Fraudulent Attempt”

The Allahabad Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has dismissed a service tax appeal finding that the appeal was hopelessly time-barred and that the appellant had attempted to mislead the Tribunal regarding receipt of the adjudication order. The bench of Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) has observed that under the statutory framework, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed additional period of one month. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises, wherein the apex court held that appellate authorities created by statute cannot extend limitation beyond the period expressly permitted under law. The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal dated July 28, 2025, by which the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida had rejected the assessee’s appeal on limitation grounds. The Tribunal, comprising Technical Member Sanjiv Srivastava, upheld that decision and observed that the appellant had failed to approach the appellate forum with “clean hands.” The dispute originated after information received from the Income Tax Department revealed that the appellant had allegedly received ₹44.93 lakh during FY 2016-17 for taxable services on which service tax had not been discharged. The department alleged that despite repeated requests, the assessee neither furnished documents nor filed ST-3 returns for the relevant period. Based on the difference between receipts reflected in income tax records and nil disclosures in ST-3 returns, the department computed a service tax liability of ₹6.74 lakh. A show cause notice dated October 22, 2021 was thereafter issued proposing recovery of service tax along with interest, penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and late fees for non-filing of returns. The adjudicating authority confirmed the service tax demand of ₹6,74,022 along with interest and imposed an equivalent penalty under Section 78. A further late fee penalty of ₹40,000 for non-filing of ST-3 returns was also imposed through Order-in-Original dated January 24, 2023. Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that the Order-in-Original had not been properly served earlier and that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) had been filed within limitation from the date of actual receipt of the order. It was contended that the acknowledgment relied upon by the department bore the signature of an unknown person and therefore the appeal ought to have been decided on merits rather than dismissed on limitation. However, the Tribunal rejected these submissions after examining the acknowledgment records reproduced in the appellate order. The Commissioner (Appeals) had recorded that the adjudication order was acknowledged by the appellant on February 7, 2023, whereas the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was filed only on January 30, 2025 — nearly 20 months beyond even the condonable period. The Tribunal made particularly strong observations against the appellant’s conduct. It noted that the appellant had produced before the Tribunal the originally signed copy of the adjudication order, which clearly demonstrated that the order had indeed been served earlier. The Tribunal observed that this was not a subsequently obtained attested copy but the original signed order meant for service upon the assessee. The Tribunal held that the plea regarding non-service was “nothing but a fraud” attempted before the Tribunal. It further observed that the appellant was “manipulating the records” and had not approached the appellate forum with clean hands. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Pathapati Subba Reddy and Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., emphasizing that limitation provisions are founded on public policy and that merits of the case cannot override statutory limitation requirements. Holding that the appeal had been filed grossly beyond the condonable period and that no satisfactory explanation existed for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Case Details Case Title: M/s Shiv Contracor Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Citation: JURISHOUR-1265-CES-2026(ALL) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.70112 of 2026 Date: 14/05/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Balram Mishra, Consultant Counsel For Respondent: Chitra Srivastava, Authorised Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person’

CESTAT Dismisses Service Tax Appeal Filed After 20-Month Delay, Calls Assessee’s Plea “Fraudulent Attempt”

Membership Required

Latest articles

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

Procedural Delay Should Not Defeat Scheme Benefits: CESTAT Directs Manual Processing of SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

More like this

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

About us

Company

Categories