2013 (10) TMI 909 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - Though no wholly satisfactory cause is shown since the appellant s counsel states that the appellant has an iron clad case, to succeed in the appeal and unwarranted injury to a public body would ensue if the appeal was rejected for delay, we condone the delay but on terms, i.e. on the condition that the appellant deposits Rs.1000/- towards costs to the credit of Revenue within three weeks from today - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in preferring appeal

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of a delay of 29 days in preferring an appeal. The appellant sought relief, explaining the cause for the delay. It was clarified that the delay occurred due to the matter being referred to the legal department and then assigned to a panel counsel of the Northern Railway for drafting the appeal. Despite repeated requests, the counsel did not draft the appeal, leading to a considerable delay. The Railway administration eventually withdrew the matter from the previous counsel and entrusted it to the present counsel for drafting. The judge emphasized that the question was not about the negligence of the present counsel but rather about the diligence of the Northern Railway. The judge acknowledged that no wholly satisfactory cause was shown for the delay but considered the potential unwarranted injury to a public body if the appeal was rejected solely for the delay. Consequently, the delay was condoned on the condition that the appellant deposits Rs.1000/- towards costs to the credit of Revenue within three weeks. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the COD application and the appeal itself. The counsel for the appellant was present during the proceedings and noted the order, which served as sufficient intimation of the obligations under the order. The COD application was disposed of accordingly, with a future hearing scheduled for the stay application and compliance verification.

This detailed analysis provides insight into the circumstances leading to the delay in preferring the appeal, the considerations made by the judge in condoning the delay, and the conditions imposed for the same. The judgment highlights the importance of diligence on the part of the appellant and the consequences of non-compliance with the specified conditions.