2013 (9) TMI 428 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay Application for cononation of delay was mater in issue appellant contended that they had a fine record of having promptly filed appeals and this is the first instance of a delay Held that - Condonation of delay was allowed on reasonable terms and documentary evidence of the appellant having sent emails to their authorised representative promptly on receipt of the appellate Commissioner s orders is available - appellant cannot be non-suited in this case involving high stakes on the ground of delay - such statements have to be entertained in an adequate manner application allowed in the favour of the applicant with costs.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.

Analysis:
The appellant filed applications seeking condonation of delay in five appeals, with delays ranging from 63 to 147 days. The appellant explained that technical issues caused a delay in communication between the appellant and the authorized representative, leading to a delay in filing the appeals. The appellant stated that emails with instructions to file appeals were not received by the authorized signatory, causing a delay in taking remedial steps. The appellant eventually filed the appeals on 9.11.2012. The appellant emphasized the genuine technical problems faced and the high stakes involved in the cases, requesting condonation of the delay.

The Deputy Commissioner (AR) argued that the appeals were filed casually, with no satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. The Deputy Commissioner opposed condonation of the delay and suggested imposing costs if the delay was to be condoned.

After reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory. While the appellant cited technical problems in communication as the reason for the delay, the Bench did not receive satisfactory responses to queries regarding the delay. The Tribunal noted that although the appellant initiated steps to file the appeals in October 2012, the heavy delay between April and October 2012 remained unexplained. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay applications.

However, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's track record of promptly filing appeals and the documentary evidence of timely communication with the authorized representative. Considering these factors and the high stakes involved, the Tribunal decided to entertain the condonation of delay applications on reasonable terms. The Tribunal allowed the applications subject to the payment of costs of Rs.10,000 per appeal within four weeks. The appellant agreed to comply with the imposed costs.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make the cost deposits in the Legal Aid Fund controlled by the competent authority appointed by the High Court and instructed the appellant to report compliance by a specified date.

In conclusion, while the Tribunal rejected the initial condonation of delay applications due to unsatisfactory explanations, it decided to entertain the applications based on the appellant's track record and the circumstances of the case, imposing costs as a condition for granting condonation of delay.