2014 (1) TMI 1656 - HC - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Construction of Complex Services - Interest u/s 75 - Held that - Affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sketchy and does not give specific details as to when the papers were entrusted to their counsel and such other matters. - appellant has raised substantive issues for consideration before the Tribunal in the matter of demand of Service Tax and imposition of penalty equivalent to the demand. Further more there is no allegation that the appellant with certain mala fide intention preferred the appeal belatedly. That apart the delay is not inordinate; but it is only 92 days. Therefore in the interest of justice this Court is of the view that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and accordingly it is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to consider the matter on merits and in accordance with law subject to the appellant complying with the other provisions relating to the appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, condonation of delay, rejection of appeal, demand of Service Tax, imposition of penalty, substantial questions of law, condonation of delay in presentation of appeal, consideration of appeal on merits.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal by the assessee against the final order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application for condoning the delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. The Commissioner had confirmed the demand of Service Tax and imposed penalty on the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the condonation application citing lack of details and material supporting the reasons for delay. The appellant argued that the delay was not wilful and requested condonation due to misplaced case papers. The Tribunal's rejection led to the present appeal on substantial questions of law.

The Court considered the substantial questions raised by the assessee, including the justification for rejecting the appeal, the comparison with similar cases, compliance with relevant legal provisions, and the need for a pragmatic approach in condoning delays. The Court noted that while the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application was lacking in specific details, the appellant had raised substantive issues regarding the demand of Service Tax and penalty imposition. The Court found no mala fide intention behind the delay and considered the 92-day delay as not inordinate. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay and directed the Tribunal to consider the matter on merits and in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the civil miscellaneous petition, with no costs imposed, and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal considering the substantive issues raised by the appellant. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the principles of justice and fairness in condoning delays in legal proceedings.