2014 (5) TMI 953 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause for delay - Held that - no affidavit has been filed by the concerned employee of the appellant to explain the delay and whether that employee had to proceed on leave suddenly on account of ill health or otherwise. From both the case laws, relied upon by the appellant in those cases, but no such justification / explanation has been given in the present appeals - The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. - The test is whether or not a cause is sufficient to see whether it could have been avoided by the party by the exercise of due care and attention - appellant should take due care and attention in filing the appeals in time. In the present facts and circumstances, it is not coming out that the appellant took due care and attention in filing the appeal and in explaining the delay - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Condonation of delay, Compliance with legal principles

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeals: The appeals were filed by the appellant against OIA No. SRP/297, 298/VAPI/2012-13 and OIA No. SRP/296/VAPI/2012-13, both dated 07.03.2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals by not condoning the delay of 28 days. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the dealing clerk being on leave for 15 days, resulting in a delay of 28 days in filing the appeals.

2. Condonation of delay: The appellant relied on case laws to support their claim for condonation of delay, citing Cosmos Casting India Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur and Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCE Nagpur. However, the Revenue argued that no justifiable reasons were provided by the appellant for the delay in filing the appeals. They cited the judgment in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jadgish Singh to support their argument that the delay should not be condoned.

3. Compliance with legal principles: The Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to explain the delay properly. No affidavit was filed by the concerned employee of the appellant to provide a valid reason for the delay. The Tribunal referred to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh Vs. Jadgish Singh to emphasize the importance of taking due care and attention in filing appeals on time. The Tribunal concluded that condonation of delay was correctly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellants were rejected.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the appeals filed by the appellant due to the failure to provide a valid explanation for the delay in filing the appeals. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles and taking due care and attention in complying with procedural requirements to ensure timely filing of appeals.