DR. D.M. Misra, J.
1. None present for the applicant despite notice.
2. Heard the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue.
3. This is an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax of Rs.12.10 Lakhs and equal amount of penalty.
4. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant on the ground of limitation. He submits that even though the Order-in-Original dated- 27th August, 2010 was communicated to the applicant on 31/08/2010, they have filed the appeal before the Ld. Commr. (Appeal) on 16/08/2011. The Ld. A.R. submits that the statutory appeal is required to be filed in case of service tax matters under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of three months before the Ld. Commr.(Appeal). The Ld. Commr. (Appeal) can condone the delay by a further period of three months.-In the present case, the appeal was filed by the appellant beyond the statutory period of three months and the condonable period of three months prescribed under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises Vs. Commr. of C.Ex., Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C) which is applicable to Service Tax cases also, the Ld. Commr. cannot condone the delay beyond the period of three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months as prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is his submission that the appeals thus liable to be dismissed.
5. We find in the present case, the appeal was filed by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) beyond the statutory period of three months and the condonable period of three months, prescribed under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994. In view of the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises (supra), the Ld. Commr. has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of three months in addition to the statutory limit of three months as prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.Hence, we do not find any discrepancy in the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeals are dismissed and S.P.s disposed off.