2009 (4) TMI 587 - AT - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Limitation - Held that - the person who was responsible to file the appeals had to attend to many pending works which could not be attended to by him due to preoccupations with other urgent works - the non-filing of the appeal within the stipulated period would have had an effect of additional liability on the applicant which no assessee would like to have. We also find that justification given by the Chief Executive Officer of the applicant is justifiable - COD allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals for condonation.

Analysis:
The case involved multiple applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals against the Order-in-Original (OIO) passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax. The delay periods ranged from 12 to 87 days for different appeals. The applicant's counsel attributed the delay to the responsible person being occupied with other urgent matters, leading to unintentional delays. On the other hand, the JCDR representing the respondent alleged the applicant of being a habitual offender who willfully avoided paying service tax collected from customers, questioning the explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and examined the records. It noted that the appeals were the first ones filed by the applicant against the OIO. The Chief Executive Officer of the applicant had submitted an affidavit explaining that the responsible person was preoccupied with urgent works, which caused the delay. The Tribunal found that subsequent adjudication orders against the applicant were appealed in time, indicating a justifiable reason for the delay. It emphasized that the delay could have resulted in additional liability for the applicant, which no assessee would desire. Referring to the judgment in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantanag v. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the applications for condonation of delay, directing the registry to accept the stay petitions and appeals. Additionally, the registry was instructed to list the stay petitions for further proceedings. The decision was pronounced in open court on 29-4-2009.