2011 (4) TMI 537 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Time limitation - It does not appear from the said order that any opportunity was given by the authorities concerned to the appellant to move an application for condonation of delay - Time limit fixed for approaching the court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause - Law of limitation fixes a life-span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered - Held that on the facts and circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and he was not justified in rejecting the appeal as barred by time - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing the appeal without application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant failed to file an application for condonation of delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal as barred by time. The primary issue raised was whether the first appellate authority was right in rejecting the appeal without giving an opportunity to file the delay condonation application.

The High Court noted that the appeal was dismissed due to the absence of an application for condonation of delay, without providing the appellant with an opportunity to rectify the defect. The Court emphasized that the power to condone delay is similar to that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, where a formal written application is not mandatory. Precedents were cited to support the view that delay can be condoned even in the absence of a written application.

The Court referred to various judgments, including those of the Apex Court, highlighting that the purpose of limitation rules is not to deprive parties of their rights but to prevent dilatory tactics. It was emphasized that courts should adopt a liberal approach in interpreting "sufficient cause" to advance substantial justice. The judiciary is expected to remove injustice rather than legalize it on technical grounds.

Ultimately, the High Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was unjustified in rejecting the appeal without allowing the appellant to explain the delay. While normally the matter would have been referred back for consideration of delay condonation, due to the elapsed time, the delay was condoned. The Court found the grounds disclosed by the appellant to be sufficient cause for the delay and set aside the previous orders, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal on its merits.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh consideration on the merits. The orders passed by the authorities were set aside, and no costs were awarded in the case.