2013 (10) TMI 533 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Waiver of pre deposit - Held that - appellants have claimed that there was a delay of 119 days which they had explained with cogent reason. Unfortunately according to the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of Singh Enterprises reported in 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - once the statute does not give the power for condonation of delay, even the appellate authority has no power to condone such delays in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A) if Commissioner (A)does not have the power - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, jurisdiction of appellate authority

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore dealt with the issue of delay in filing an appeal and the condonation of such delay. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal due to a delay of 209 days beyond the normal period of three months. The appellant had provided a medical certificate to explain the delay, but the Commissioner (A) stated that he lacked the power to condone delays beyond three months as per the statute. The appellant did not contest these observations in their appeal memorandum. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises case, stating that if the statute does not grant the power for condonation of delay, even the appellate authority cannot condone such delays. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.

The main issue in this case was the delay in filing the appeal, which was 209 days beyond the normal three-month period. The appellant tried to justify the delay with a medical certificate, but the Commissioner (A) was unable to condone the delay due to statutory limitations. The appellant's failure to contest the Commissioner's observations further weakened their case. The Tribunal, referring to the Supreme Court decision in Singh Enterprises case, emphasized that if the statute does not provide for condonation of delay, the appellate authority also lacks the power to condone such delays. This legal principle led to the rejection of the appeal by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals and the limitations on condoning delays beyond the specified period. The case serves as a reminder that when the law does not grant the power to condone delays, even the appellate authority is bound by such restrictions. The decision in this case underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the consequences of failing to meet statutory requirements in legal proceedings.