Mumbai Port Trust Vs Commissioner of Service Tax — I ( CESTAT Mumbai)
The appellant is the Mumbai Port Trust. A demand of service tax under “port” services was confirmed for providing terminal facilities to Central and Western Railways. On appeal, the Commissioner (appeals) dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was belated beyond condonation. Hence, appeal.
Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai set aside the order and allowed the appeal. It held: (i) the order was passed on 18.05.2012 and served on 04.06.2012; therefore; amendment to section 85; with effect from 28.05.2012; reducing the time limit for filing appeal from 3 months to 2 months could not apply; (ii) in terms of section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the date on which order is received has to be excluded for purpose of calculating limitation; hence; the appeal was within the prescribed time limit of 3 months; (iii) hence, appeal is allowed with direction to commissioner (appeals) to decide the issue on merits.
The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani along with Advocate Neha Chakraborty.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT MUMBAI ORDER
The appellant, Mis Mumbai Port Trust, was in appeal against e demand of tax under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 on aUeted. rendering of ‘port services’ in providing terminal facilities to Central and Wester n Railways for consideration, but Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-1), Mumbai, by order, declined to go into the merits on the ground that the appeal had been presented beyond the limitation prescribed in section 85 of Finance’ Act, 1994 which, with effect from 28′ May 2012, was restricted to two months from the date of receipt of the order causing grievance and discretion in admitting appeal beyond further period of one month was contingent upon satisfaction of the first appellate authority that reasonable cause prevented filing.
