2011 (1) TMI 696 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - the Committee of Commissioners have taken decision on 9.9.09 against filing the appeal - The said decision has been revised by the Committee in a subsequent meeting held on 19.1.10 - If this ground is accepted as sufficient for condonation of delay it may lead to reopening of many cases where the department has chosen not to file appeal - Held that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Sufficient cause for delay

Analysis:
The appeal by the department was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming a demand and penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act. There was a delay of 86 days in filing the appeal, and an application for condonation of delay was filed. The reasons for the delay included the decision by the Committee of Commissioners on 9.9.09 not to file the appeal, which was later revised in a meeting on 19.1.10, leading to the delay from 8.12.09 to 3.3.10.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and records, noting that condonation of delay can be considered if a sufficient cause is explained. However, in this case, the initial decision by the Committee not to file the appeal was later revised, which may set a precedent for reopening cases where the department chose not to appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the rejection of the department's appeal as it was barred by limitation. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the importance of timely appeals and the need for sufficient cause to justify condonation of delay.