Service Tax Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Time Limit Rejected: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has upheld the rejection of an appeal filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Finance Act, 1994. The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) that appellate authorities, being creatures of statute, cannot condone delays beyond the period specifically allowed under law. The appellant/assessee, Supercity Infratech Private Limited, engaged in providing Construction of Residential Complex services, came under the scanner of the Service Tax Department following intelligence regarding alleged non-payment of service tax on customer advances. A search operation was conducted on September 21, 2016. Subsequent reconciliation of financial records for the period 2013–14 to 2016–17 revealed that the company had claimed 75% abatement, whereas the applicable abatement had been reduced to 70% with effect from April 1, 2016 through Notification No. 08/2016-ST. Despite multiple communications from the department between January and September 2018, the assessee failed to furnish ST-3 returns or balance sheets, prompting authorities to retrieve financial data from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal. Based on the findings, the department issued a show cause notice dated October 18, 2018, demanding ₹1.14 crore in service tax, along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. The notice also invoked the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) and proposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78. An Order-in-Original dated April 30, 2019 confirmed the tax demand of ₹1,14,31,788, along with applicable interest and penalties. The assessee challenged the order before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appeal was rejected on the ground that it had been filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The company then approached the CESTAT, arguing that the Order-in-Original was dispatched on May 1, 2019, but was actually received only on August 2, 2019. According to the appellant, the appeal filed on August 9, 2019 was therefore within the prescribed limitation period. The assessee also contended that the department failed to produce proof of delivery of the order. Under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applicable to service tax matters, service of orders by post requires proof of delivery and cannot merely rely on presumption of delivery. The department argued that the appeal was filed 195 days after dispatch of the order, far beyond the maximum permissible time limit. Under Section 85(3A), an appeal must be filed within two months from the date of receipt of the order, with a further one month allowed for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown. The department relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008), which held that statutory authorities cannot condone delays beyond the period explicitly allowed under the statute. After examining the record and the affidavit filed by the appellant, the Tribunal observed that the Order-in-Original had been delivered to the address recorded with the department. The delay occurred because the envelope containing the order was received by the occupant of the previous office premises and was communicated to the appellant only later. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not informed the department about the change of address and that the responsibility of the department was limited to delivering the order to the address available in its records. It further held that the appellant’s own affidavit confirmed that the order had indeed been received at the earlier address, thereby establishing proof of delivery. The Tribunal also relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which clarified that appellate authorities have no power to condone delay beyond the additional 30 days permitted by statute. Since the appeal had been filed beyond the maximum allowable period, the Commissioner (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain it. In view of the statutory limitation and the facts on record, the Tribunal held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the rejection of the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation. Case Details Case Title: Supercity Infratech Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST-Delhi East Citation: JURISHOUR-342-CES-2026(DEL) Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 51475 Of 2022 Date: 12.03.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: A.K. Prasad and Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocates Counsel For Respondent: Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Reassessment Notice Issued Beyond ‘Surviving Time’ Under Income Tax Act Quashed: Gujarat High Court

Service Tax Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Time Limit Rejected: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

GSTAT Admits Dispute Over Interest on Delayed Refund, Examines Whether 60-Day Period Runs From Original Refund Application

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Retrospective GST Penalty Challenge; Stays Coercive Action

Rejection of S. 156(3) Application Does Not Bar Subsequent FIR: Supreme Court

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 19 AUGUST, 2026

More like this

GSTAT Admits Dispute Over Interest on Delayed Refund, Examines Whether 60-Day Period Runs From Original Refund Application

Supreme Court Issues Notice on Retrospective GST Penalty Challenge; Stays Coercive Action

Rejection of S. 156(3) Application Does Not Bar Subsequent FIR: Supreme Court

About us

Company

Categories