Pal Enterprises Vs Commissioner CGST (CESTAT Allahabad)
The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.12.2021, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Allahabad rejected the appellant’s appeal as barred by limitation. The proceedings arose from a show cause notice dated 09.11.2017 proposing service tax, interest and penalties after the department noticed, on the basis of Form 26AS, that the appellant had received consideration of Rs.1,16,24,288 during FY 2012-13 to 2016-17 and was not registered with the Service Tax Department. The adjudicating authority passed an ex parte order confirming service tax of Rs.14,85,425, equal penalty under Section 78, penalties under Sections 77(1)(a) and 77(1)(c), and penalties of Rs.1,10,000 under Section 77(2).
The appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly held the appeal to be time-barred. It was explained that the appellant had shifted between Kanpur and Basti while attending to his mother’s cancer treatment and became aware of the adjudication order only when recovery proceedings commenced. According to the appellant, a certified copy of the Order-in-Original was served on 15.03.2021 and the appeal was filed on 16.06.2021.
The Tribunal considered whether the appeal filed on 16.06.2021 was within the period prescribed under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. Referring to the provision and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Cotton Corporation of India vs. Assistant Commissioner (2025) 27 Centax 158 (A.P.), which relied upon the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term “month,” the Tribunal held that the periods of “two months” and “one month” in Section 85(3A) refer to calendar months and not 60 days or 30 days. Accordingly, the two-month period from 16.03.2021 expired on 16.05.2021, and the additional one-month condonable period expired on 16.06.2021, the date on which the appeal was filed.
