2014 (9) TMI 36 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - revenue appeal - delay of 98 days - it is evident that the issue has been taken by the appellant before the Board for its approval to file appeal and as a consequence, delay occasioned - Held that - The facts and circumstances of the present case clearly justifies condonation of delay of 98 days, in any event, 48 days from the date the Board granted its approval, whereinafter some time is required for preparation and filing of the appeal. The Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view and should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case, which the Tribunal failed to do. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. - delay condoned - matter restored before tribunal - decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing statutory appeal.
2. Failure of Tribunal to adopt a pragmatic approach.
3. Consideration of sufficient cause for delay.
4. Failure to appreciate Supreme Court observations on delay condonation.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 2.3.07. The Revenue raised substantial questions of law related to the condonation of delay in filing the statutory appeal. The Tribunal was criticized for not adopting a pragmatic and justice-oriented approach in this matter.

2. The Tribunal was questioned for not considering the sufficient cause shown by the appellant for seeking condonation of delay. The appellant department had provided a detailed time chart explaining the reasons for the delay, attributing it to official exigencies. The Tribunal's failure to appreciate the cause pleaded by the appellant was highlighted.

3. The Tribunal was also criticized for not properly appreciating the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the manner in which applications for condonation of delay should be dealt with. The Supreme Court's decision in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao was cited, emphasizing that some latitude is permissible to the Department in filing appeals, especially when the Government is the appellant.

4. The High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the delay of 98 days was justifiable, particularly after the Board granted its approval. The Court opined that the Tribunal should have taken a pragmatic view and condoned the delay based on the circumstances presented. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, directing the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the case and closed the connected miscellaneous petition without any order as to costs.