2015 (8) TMI 1326 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - financial difficulties - inability to arrange the money for making the mandatory deposits for filing appeal - reference made to the case Union of India & Others Versus Perayam Subhash & Others 2008 (2) TMI 862 - SUPREME COURT - Held that - the case of Perayam Subhash & Others not applicable as merits of the case is involved. The requirement of mandatory deposit under the provision of Section 35F, of the Central Excise Act 1944 as amended is linked with the filing of appeal. The delay in filing the appeal for arranging the fund for mandatory deposit would be the general feature, without any material. The delay of filing appeals would be considered on the basis of facts of each case - no reason found for condoning the delay - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to financial difficulties.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal for 175 days due to financial difficulties. The Learned Advocate representing the applicant argued that the delay was caused by the inability to arrange funds for the mandatory deposits required for filing the appeal. He contended that the merit of the appeal favored the applicant and cited instances where the Tribunal had granted stay to other applicants on similar issues. Additionally, he referenced a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support his plea for leniency in viewing the delay.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal did not find merit in the argument put forth by the Learned Advocate regarding the delay being attributed to fund arrangement for the mandatory deposit under the law. The Tribunal highlighted that the requirement of the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act is directly linked to the filing of the appeal. They emphasized that delays in filing appeals for fund arrangement purposes are common and do not carry substantial grounds for condonation. The Tribunal clarified that the decision cited by the Learned Advocate from the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertained to the merits of the case, not the delay in filing. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application and dismissed the appeal based on the lack of valid reasons for the delay.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, such as mandatory deposits, in a timely manner when filing appeals. It establishes that delays caused by fund arrangement difficulties may not suffice as justifiable reasons for condonation, emphasizing the need to consider each case's specifics when evaluating delay requests.