2015 (8) TMI 1327 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - father s ill health and hospitalization was shown as the cause of delay - Held that - hospitalization is for about 18 days on three occasions. It is very strange that the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of about 6 months (171 days) on the ground of his father s hospitalization; where the hospitalization has been for about 18 days. The appellant has not been able to establish any sufficient cause for this delay of 171 days. He has also not been able to explain that how this father s hospitalization prevented him from filing this appeal. This delay of 171 days (about six months) shows negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant - requirement of provisions of Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not complied with - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal; Condonation of delay; Sufficient cause for delay; Provisions of Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE dealt with an application for condonation of delay of 171 days in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 91/2013 dated 30.4.2013, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, K.V. Ranga Kiran, claimed that the order was received by him on 26/12/2013, despite being sent to his address promptly after passing. The appellant attributed the delay to his father's hospitalization, totaling 18 days over three occasions. However, the Tribunal noted that the delay of 171 days, approximately six months, was not adequately justified by the father's hospitalization. The appellant failed to establish a sufficient cause for the delay, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal for not meeting the requirements of Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

In the detailed analysis, the Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's reliance on his father's hospitalization as the primary reason for the delay was insufficient. Despite the hospitalization occurring for a total of 18 days on three separate occasions, the delay of 171 days was deemed excessive, indicating negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant failed to demonstrate how his father's hospitalization directly prevented him from filing the appeal within the stipulated time frame. As per the provisions of Section 35B (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justifiable explanation or reason to condone the delay, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal for not being filed within the prescribed timeline.

The judgment underscored the importance of establishing a valid and sufficient cause for seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals. Despite the appellant's attempt to attribute the delay to his father's health issues, the Tribunal found the explanation lacking in merit and failed to justify the prolonged delay of 171 days. By adhering to the statutory provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, specifically Section 35B (3), the Tribunal upheld the requirement for timely filing of appeals and dismissed the appellant's plea for condonation of delay. The decision reinforced the principle that mere personal circumstances, without a direct link to the inability to file the appeal within the prescribed period, may not suffice as a valid ground for seeking leniency in procedural compliance.