2009 (7) TMI 812 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal to Tribunal Limitation - delay of 606 days in filing the appeal - delay of one day in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - rejected the appeal filed by the appellant without granting an opportunity for explaining the delay - Commissioner (Appeals) has not passed an order on merits - appeal are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

BRIEF SUMMARY:

Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore heard an application for condonation of a 606-day delay in filing an appeal. The delay was attributed to the appellant's belief that their appeal was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a rejected application for condonation of a one-day delay. The Tribunal found the delay genuine and condoned it, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration on merits. The delay was considered justified based on the appellant's circumstances and the lack of communication from the Commissioner (Appeals). The stay application and appeal were allowed by remand.

DETAILED ANALYSIS:

1. The appellant filed a COD application for condoning a 606-day delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The delay was due to the appellant's belief that their appeal was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) after a rejected condonation application for a one-day delay.

3. The Departmental Representative argued against condoning the delay, deeming the reasons unjustified.

4. The appellant's Affidavit detailed the grounds for the delay, including consultation with counsel and a belief in pending appeal status.

5. The delay was calculated and attributed to the appellant's bona fide belief in the appeal's status before the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. The Tribunal found the delay genuine and justified based on the circumstances presented in the Affidavit.

7. The appellant, a small firm, faced irreparable damage if the appeal was rejected due to the delay.

8. The Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court judgment, decided to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration on merits.

9. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal on the grounds of time bar without granting an opportunity for the appellant to explain the delay.

10. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the stay application and appeal by remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals).

11. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court, allowing the appellant another opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner (Appeals).