2011 (11) TMI 528 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal rejected on the ground of delayed filing - Held that - As per Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 prescribed time is three months time for filing of Appeal Extension of further three months on giving sufficient cause for delay delay in filing appeal by Appellant as the person who was looking after Service Tax has left their company and as service tax is a new subject they could not file Appeal in time - Appellant is not disputing the payment of service tax which they have already paid, therefore the appellant is not likely to gain anything for not filing the Appeal in time - refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated remand the issue to learned Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the case on merits in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Dispute regarding penalty imposed.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed an appeal against an order-in-Appeal that rejected the appeal due to late filing, citing a violation of the time limit prescribed by Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Appellant did not contest the service tax classification but disputed the penalty imposed, claiming that the delay was due to the person responsible for service tax matters leaving their organization. The Appellant argued that the delay should be condoned as they gained nothing by filing late, especially since they had already paid the service tax. The Addl. Commissioner contended that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay, despite it being within the condonable time limit.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the person handling service tax matters leaving the company and the complexity of service tax being a new subject for them. The Tribunal highlighted that the Appellant did not dispute the payment of service tax, indicating they had no intention to gain by filing late. Citing the Supreme Court case of COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG, the Tribunal emphasized that refusing to condone the delay could result in a meritorious matter being dismissed at the outset, thwarting the cause of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order-in-Appeal, remanding the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, with a directive to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals, especially when the delay does not provide any undue advantage to the Appellant and may lead to a just determination on the merits of the case.