2014 (10) TMI 25 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 290 days - Held that - appellants have expressed all the misfortunes met by them during the intervening period of receipt of impugned order and filing of appeal thereagainst. As regards, the first reason that their legal counsel Shri K.C. Jain, suffered from heart attack. It is seen that no details of heart attack treatment of the same and subsequent difficulties faced by him stands placed on record. Even if, we accept the appellants stand that Shri Jain suffered heart attack, as per the appellants themselves, he was attending office though not regularly. Nothing stand shown by the appellant as to what efforts they made to contact Shri Jain, for the purpose of preparing the appeal & signing the same. It also does not stand disclosed as to when appeal papers were handed over to Shri Jain. While examining the reasons advanced by the appellant for condoning such a huge delay of 290 days, we find that reasons for such delay have occurred after the expiry of limitation period and as such cannot be considered to be a sufficient cause for the delay. In these circumstances, it has to be held that delay has occurred on account of appellants being negligent and not on account of any compelling reasons - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay

The judgment dealt with the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The appellant sought to condone a delay of 290 days in filing the appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed on 28-1-2011. The reasons provided for the delay included the health issues of their legal counsel, departure of another legal advisor, and a family member's accident. The Tribunal analyzed each reason to determine if they constituted a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal first examined the reason related to the legal counsel's health issues. Despite acknowledging the health problems faced by the counsel, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide details of the treatment or efforts made to prepare and file the appeal during that period. The Tribunal noted that the counsel was attending office, albeit irregularly, and questioned the lack of evidence regarding the handover of appeal papers.

Regarding the departure of the second legal advisor, the Tribunal observed that the departure occurred after the expiration of the limitation period for filing the appeal. As such, the departure of the advisor could not be considered a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal also addressed the family member's accident as a reason for the delay. However, they pointed out that the accident happened after the deadline for filing the appeal had passed, rendering it irrelevant to the delay issue. The Tribunal emphasized that sufficient cause for condonation of delay should not be based on events occurring after the limitation period.

In concluding the analysis, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of condoning delays based on substantial reasons and the conduct of the parties. They cited Supreme Court decisions emphasizing the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that delays should not be condoned due to negligence on the part of the appellant, as it would undermine the purpose of statutory limitations. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application, leading to the rejection of the stay petitions and appeal on the grounds of being time-barred.