2014 (7) TMI 794 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - demand of service tax - Mandap keeper service - Delay due to ill health of spouse of proprietor - Commissioner declined to invoke discretion - Held that - Condonation of delay particularly in the circumstances pleaded by the appellant should be liberally considered. It is perverse for the learned appellate Commissioner to hold that care of a spouse and the need for her attention is not a relevant criterion. The discretion to condone the delay authorised to the appellate Commissioner is not the personal discretion of the Commissioner; it is the discretion of the law and should be examine appropriately as dictates of law require. The order is whimsical inviting invalidation and is accordingly set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 85(3A) of the Finance Act, 1994. The case revolved around a service tax demand imposed on the appellant for providing 'mandap keeper' services. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand, leading the appellant to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed due to a delay of 29 days beyond the specified limitation period. The appellant cited the illness of the proprietor's wife as the reason for the delay, supported by a medical certificate. The appellate Commissioner, however, found the reason insufficient, stating that the illness did not impact the business operations.

The judgment highlighted the arbitrary exercise of discretion by the appellate Commissioner in not considering the personal circumstances of the appellant, particularly the care required for the spouse. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretion to condone the delay is not personal but legal, and should be applied liberally as per the law. The Tribunal deemed the decision of the appellate Commissioner as whimsical and invalid, leading to the setting aside of the order. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further adjudication on merits, without imposing any costs.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of a fair and reasonable assessment of condonation of delay in filing appeals, emphasizing the need for a balanced consideration of personal circumstances within the legal framework.