2014 (6) TMI 130 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were belated - Held that - There was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The adjudicating authority had decided the matter on 31.1.2011 and a copy thereof was sent to the appellant on the same day. However, the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to be filed on or before 30.4.2011, i.e. within the stipulated period of limitation of three months. But the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 8.1.2013, after a delay of more than 20 months. In the other appeal, there is delay of 24 months in filing the appeal. The plea of the appellant is that the proprietor of the assessee-firm was not in a good state of mind and was going under medical treatment for the last three years and, therefore, could not pursue the matter. Such plea does not stand substantiated in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There has been an inordinate delay of more than 20 and 24 months in filing the appeals - no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises in these appeals - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) which were belated. The legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was examined. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays.

2. The law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure legal remedies are availed without delay. Section 5 of the Limitation Act empowers courts to condone delay if sufficient cause is shown. The expression "sufficient cause" is flexible to serve the ends of justice. Each case is unique, and the court must examine if the delay is properly explained with reasonable diligence. The purpose is to do substantial justice between the parties.

3. The court must adopt a liberal approach for short delays and a strict approach for inordinate delays. The applicant must establish that the delay was beyond their control and inevitable despite acting with due care. The existence of sufficient cause depends on the facts of each case, and no exhaustive list defines it. Judicial discretion is crucial in deciding condonation of delay cases based on individual circumstances.

4. In this specific case, the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The appeals were filed after significant delays of more than 20 and 24 months, which were not adequately justified. The appellant's argument of the proprietor's medical treatment affecting the filing of appeals was not substantiated. The court found the delays inexcusable and not due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

5. Consequently, the court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeals due to the lack of merit. The appeals were dismissed based on the inordinate delays in filing them before the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the need to establish genuine and justifiable reasons for seeking condonation of delay.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal principles and factual considerations involved in the case regarding the condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Finance Act.