2014 (6) TMI 799 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Demand of service tax, interest and imposition of penalty - Appeal was dismissed for want of COD clearance - Held that - That being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the ld.Commissioner, the Department has preferred an appeal as well as the Applicant. At that time, the Applicants choose to file an appeal against the confirmation of the part of the demand against them and elected not to contest that part of the order in favour of them by filing Cross Objection. Now, going through their application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the cross-objection, we do not find any valid reason or cause justifying the delay in filing the Cross Objection. Even in the application, the total number of delays occurred in filing the present Cross Objection, has also not been stated clearly nor any date chart is enclosed explaining the delay. It is barely asserted after narrating the facts that there has been delay in filing the Cross Objection, against the Department s Appeal and the same be condoned. We agree with the contention of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the principle of condonation of delay is equally applicable to Cross Objection also filed under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 - In view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Living Media India Ltd. case (2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the Public Sector Undertaking cannot be given a special status in applying the principle/guideline applicable to others for condonation of delay - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing Cross Objection, Condonation of delay, Principle of condonation of delay, Special status for Public Sector Undertakings

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Respondent seeking condonation of delay in filing a Cross Objection against the Department's Appeal. The Respondent had initially filed an Appeal against an order but did not file a Cross Objection. Subsequently, after multiple failed attempts to restore their Appeal, they decided to file the Cross Objection, leading to a significant delay. The issue at hand was whether the delay in filing the Cross Objection could be condoned.

The Respondent argued that due to various unsuccessful attempts to restore their Appeal, they eventually filed the Cross Objection. They contended that the delay was justified given the circumstances. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the Respondent consciously chose not to file the Cross Objection earlier and only decided to do so after their Appeal was rejected. The Revenue cited a Supreme Court decision to support their argument that the Respondent, being a Public Sector Undertaking, should not receive special treatment without sufficient cause for the delay.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal examined the facts and found no valid reason or cause justifying the delay in filing the Cross Objection. The Tribunal noted that the application for condonation of delay lacked clarity regarding the total number of delays and did not provide a detailed explanation for the delay. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument that the principle of condonation of delay applies to Cross Objections as well, and Public Sector Undertakings should not receive special treatment without sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, ruling it devoid of merit.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the importance of justifying delays in legal proceedings and applying the principle of condonation of delay uniformly, even to Public Sector Undertakings. The decision serves as a reminder that parties must provide valid reasons for delays in filing legal documents to seek condonation effectively.