2013 (8) TMI 550 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Document misplaced - Held that - The C.A. is the agent of the appellant and the appellant is accountable for the agents lack of diligence. There is no satisfactory cause shown for the near one year delay in preferring the appeal, beyond the three months provided for preferring an appeal - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved: Condonation of Delay in filing appeal

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of condonation of a delay of 351 days in filing an appeal against an appellate order. The appellant sought condonation of delay citing reasons related to the handling of the matter by their Chartered Accountant (C.A.). The appellant claimed that all documents were being handed over to the C.A. and that the delay occurred due to an error by one of the C.A.'s assistants, resulting in misplacement of the papers. However, the court held that the C.A. is the agent of the appellant, and the appellant is responsible for the agent's lack of diligence. The court found no satisfactory cause for the significant delay beyond the three months period allowed for filing an appeal. As a result, the court dismissed the condonation of delay application and consequently dismissed the appeal.

This judgment emphasizes the principle that the appellant is accountable for the actions of their agent, in this case, the Chartered Accountant. The court highlighted that the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the extensive delay in filing the appeal, which exceeded the permissible time limit. The court's decision to dismiss the condonation of delay application indicates a strict approach towards compliance with procedural timelines in legal matters. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and diligent action by parties and their representatives in legal proceedings to avoid adverse consequences such as dismissal of appeals due to delays.