- (1.) This order shall dispose of STA Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts involved therein are similar and the grounds seeking condonation of delay before the Commissioner (Appeals) in both the appeals are identical. In STA No. 2 of 2014, there was a delay of more than 20 months whereas in STA No. 3 of 2013, there was a delay of more than 24 months in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). For brevity, the facts are being taken from STA No. 2 of 2014. This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 (in short "the Act") read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the orders dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure A-6) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi; dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh and dated 31.1.2013 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ropar, claiming the following substantial questions of law:-- (i) Whether the order passed by the ld. CESTAT holding the appeal of the appellant is time barred, can be stated to be legal and correct as per facts on records? (ii) Whether Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable in the present case or not? (iii) Whether mere technicalities can come in the way of Administration of Justice? (iv) Whether a good case on merit can be ignored only on the point of delay, which is bona fide? (v) Whether manifest injustice has been caused to the appellant or not? (vi) Whether a casual approach is required to be taken on delay in the cases like present one?
(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. The appellant provided services under material handling contract to M/s. National Fertilizers Ltd. (NFL). It also provided services for maintenance of Ash pond and maintenance of fire services and operation/upkeep of compressed air filling stations etc. to M/s. NFL during the period July 2003 to March 2006. A show cause notice dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure A-1) was issued to the appellant demanding service tax to the tune of Rs. 2,89,692/- along with interest as it received a sum of Rs. 28,82,504/- during the period July 2003 to March 2006 for providing management, maintenance or repair services to M/s. NFL. The appellant filed reply to the said show cause notice. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 31.1.2011 (Annexure A-2) confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty of equal amount. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure A-3) before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the appeal was barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4) rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal being time barred. Still dissatisfied with the order dated 6.2.2013 (Annexure A-4), the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure A-6) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. Hence, the present appeal.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.;