2014 (8) TMI 299 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 382 days - delay in filing of appeal before Commissioner (A) - appellant being a lady entrepreneur who started her business as self-employment and sought a sympathetic treatment - Held that - the appellant has pleaded that Commissioner (A) could have condoned the delay by invoking the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that appeal can be filed within three years from the date of cause of action. The Hon ble Supreme Court considered this issue in the case of Singh Enterprises 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and has held that when the statute provides a period for filing an appeal and also a period which can be condoned, if an appeal is filed beyond such period, such delay cannot be condoned. - appeal rejected - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal dismissal due to delay in filing beyond condonable period.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, delivered by B S V Murthy, addressed the issue of dismissing an appeal due to a delay in filing beyond the condonable period. The appellant, a lady entrepreneur, sought sympathetic treatment as she started her business as self-employment. The learned counsel for the appellant requested to decide the issue based on written submissions emphasizing the appellant's circumstances. Despite being inclined to show sympathy, the Tribunal was compelled to decide the appeal at that stage due to the delay in filing.

The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being filed beyond the condonable period before the learned Commissioner (A). The appeal reached the Commissioner's office on 10.1.2013, while the impugned Order-in-Original had been served on 26.9.2011, resulting in a delay of 382 days. The appellant had argued that the delay could have been condoned by invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, allowing appeals to be filed within three years from the date of the cause of action. However, citing the case of Singh Enterprises: 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.), the Tribunal highlighted that when a statute provides a filing period and a condonable period, delays beyond the latter cannot be condoned. Despite expressing sympathy for the appellant's situation, the Tribunal was bound by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines for filing appeals, as established by legal precedents. The Tribunal, while acknowledging the appellant's challenges, was constrained by the legal framework and precedent, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the delay in filing beyond the condonable period.