2014 (3) TMI 477 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Condonation of delay - Mistake in interpretation of impugned order - Held that - Assessee have already paid the amount of service tax of ₹ 1,18,320/- and ₹ 1,28,272/- along with interest and therefore they were under the impression that the impugned order has upheld the demand of service tax and interest which they have already paid - applicant is a small entrepreneur registered with the service tax authorities and wrongly understood the word appeal allowed as above as mentioned in the impugned order. It appears from the operative portion of the order that the applicant failed to understand the implications of this order as they have already deposited duty and interest, which they were not contesting. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the operative portion of the order, it is appropriate to condone the delay of 169 days involved in the filing of the appeal and we do the same - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Issue 1: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution:
The appellant's appeal was dismissed along with the COD application and stay application due to non-prosecution. Subsequently, the appellant filed for restoration of the appeal. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, found sufficient reason to recall the ex parte order dated 2.4.2013. The Tribunal noted that the previous order was passed without delving into the merits of the case. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the order dated 2.4.2013 and restored the appeal along with the stay application and COD application to its original number.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:
The applicant sought condonation of a 169-day delay in filing the appeal. The applicant received the impugned order on 9.4.2010 and believed that the lower appellate authority's decision was in their favor, leading them to not take further action. However, upon further review, they realized the authority had not adequately addressed their grounds. Subsequently, they received a letter directing them to pay tax, interest, and penalty as confirmed in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The applicant, being a small entrepreneur, had deposited the entire tax amount along with interest, assuming the impugned order favored them. The Tribunal analyzed the operative portion of the order, noting the confusion that led the applicant to misunderstand the implications. Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to liberally construe the delay and condoned the 169-day delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the COD application was allowed, and the miscellaneous application for restoration of the appeal was also allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of restoring the appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and condoning the delay in filing the appeal comprehensively. The decision highlighted the importance of understanding legal implications and the need for clarity in interpreting orders to avoid misunderstandings.