2011 (2) TMI 893 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - The appeals could not be filed in time as the Cost Accountant who was dealing with the matter could not join duty because of health problem of his father - The appellants have filed an affidavit executed by the learned Cost Accountant who took responsibility for non-filing the appeals within the period prescribed u/s 85(3) of the Act - It is a fact on record that the said affidavit was not controverted - Hence take note of that affidavit and find that the appellants have been able to explain the reason for delay in filing the appeals up to the satisfaction of this Bench - As in series of cases the Hon ble Apex Court has held that substantive benefit should not be denied to the appellants of by not condoning the delay. Following the same ratio condone the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority and send back the matter to the lower appellate authority to pass the order on merit.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal dismissal on limitation grounds.

Analysis:
The appeals in this case were dismissed by the lower appellate authority on the basis of being time-barred. The appellants received the impugned order on a specific date and were required to file the appeal within three months from that date as per the provisions of section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. However, the appeals were filed after the deadline due to the Cost Accountant's inability to handle the matter promptly because of his father's health issues. The lower appellate authority did not find this reason satisfactory and dismissed the appeals. The appellants contested this decision, arguing that the delay was not intentional or mala fide.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appeals were indeed filed within the period allowed by the proviso to section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994. The lower appellate authority's sole reason for dismissal was the unsatisfactory nature of the explanation provided for the delay. The appellants submitted an affidavit from the Cost Accountant taking responsibility for the delay, which went uncontested. The Tribunal acknowledged this affidavit and accepted the explanation for the delay, citing previous Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural delays. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, directing the matter back to the lower appellate authority for a decision on the merits, ensuring the appellants have a fair opportunity to present their case.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delays in legal proceedings, emphasizing that substantive rights should not be denied solely due to procedural issues. The decision underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers the circumstances leading to delays and ensures that parties are not unfairly prejudiced by strict adherence to procedural timelines.