2011 (1) TMI 686 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 319/2009, dated 3-8-2009 was filed on 24-11-2009 - This matter came up before the Bench for disposal on 17-12-2010. Vide Note sheet order dated 11-2-2010, this Bench noted that only one appeal was filed though three appeals were required to be filed by the Revenue - It can be seen from the above facts that Revenue has been taking the direction of the Bench very callously and in a cavalier manner. Instead of filing the appeals within the period of 3 months from 11-2-2010, they took almost 5 months to file the supplementary appeals, which is in my view, is a lackadaisical approach towards the directions of the Bench - Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, supplementary appeals, lackadaisical approach of the Revenue, dismissal of applications for condonation of delay and supplementary appeals.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with applications seeking condonation of delay of 124 days in filing appeals before the Bench. The Judge noted that only one appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 319/2009, dated 3-8-2009, though three appeals were required to be filed by the Revenue. The Bench had directed the Revenue to file supplementary appeals by a specified date, but the appeals were not filed within the given timeframe. The Judge criticized the Revenue for their lackadaisical approach towards the Bench's directions, stating that the delay in filing supplementary appeals was detrimental to the Revenue's case. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and the supplementary appeals were also dismissed. The Registry was directed to list the stay petition in due course.

In this judgment, the Judge emphasized the importance of complying with the directions of the Bench and the need for timely filing of appeals. The Judge's decision to dismiss the applications for condonation of delay and supplementary appeals was based on the Revenue's failure to adhere to the Bench's instructions within the specified timeframe. The Judge's assessment of the Revenue's actions as a lackadaisical approach highlights the significance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings. The dismissal of the applications serves as a reminder of the consequences of not following court directives in a timely and diligent manner, ultimately affecting the outcome of the case.