Siddhi Developers vs. The Joint Commissioner Central GST Pune Ii Commissionerate

Facts

The appellant, Siddhi Developers, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against an Order-in-Original dated 15 November 2019, which they received on 30 November 2019. The appeal was filed on 17 March 2020, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals), by an order dated 30 September 2020, dismissed the condonation application, holding that they had no power to condone delays beyond one month of the initially prescribed two-month period under the proviso to sub-section (3A) of Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant then appealed to the Tribunal, which, by an order dated 10 May 2023, refused to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The present appeal is against the Tribunal's order.

Held

The Court held that the provisions of Section 35B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, apply only to appeals presented before the Tribunal and not to appeals presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appellant could not use Section 35B(5) to bypass the clear provisions of Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Furthermore, the Court found that Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, does not empower the Tribunal to direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to exercise powers not vested in them by the legislature. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly acted within the scope of Section 85(3A) by holding they had no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and dismissing the appeal. The Court also referred to Supreme Court decisions in M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited and this Court's decision in Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd., which supported the view that appellate authorities cannot condone delays beyond the statutory period. Both proposed questions of law were answered against the appellant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Tribunal had the power under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, to condone the delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the one-month period provided in the proviso to Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. - Petitioner's argument: The Tribunal had the power to condone delays under Section 35C(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Section 86(7) of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows for condonation of delay upon sufficient cause shown, without any maximum limit. They argued that the delay of approximately 17 days was justifiable and should have been condoned. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal without considering decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches. - Petitioner's argument: The Tribunal's failure to consider decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches, which had directed condonation of delay beyond the prescribed period, was a valid ground for interference.