By TIOL News Service

RANCHI, OCT 25, 2016: THE appeal preferred by the petitioner appellant was dismissed by the Commissioner (A) mainly on the ground that it was time barred by two days as per Section 85(3A) of the FA, 1994.

The facts are that the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 29th June 2015 was received by the petitioner on 6th July 2015 and thereafter appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 7th September 2015.

The High Court inter alia observed -

+ in terms of the appeal provisions of the FA, 1994, the appeal had to be preferred by 6th September 2015, but, since 6th September 2015 was a Sunday, appeal was filed on 7th September 2015. Even 5th September 2015 was not a working day for the Central Government offices as it was a Saturday. Hence, there is no delay in preferring the appeal by this appellant.

The High Court added -

+ it ought to be kept in mind by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals) that a hyper technical view ought not have been taken by him as delay is condoned even on oral prayer. It would not be out of context to mention here that these types of orders unnecessarily increase the workload of the High Court.

The impugned O-in-A was quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded for decision on merits.

While allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court asked the Registrar General to send a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner for whom the Bench had the following words of sagely advise -

The Chief Commissioner should have given guidance in the meetings with Commissioners (Appeals) so that this type of too much technical orders is not passed by them.

(See 2016-TIOL-2584-HC-JHARKHAND-ST)