2014 (11) TMI 465 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Whether the first respondent/Tribunal is right in rejecting the condonation of delay application for condoning the delay of 69 days in filing appeal filed by the appellant - Held that - Branch Manager of the appellant company filed an affidavit confirming the shifting of the branch office and misplacing of the relevant papers. That apart, the conduct of the appellant does not indicate inaction or negligence in pursuing the matter. The explanation offered by the appellant for the marginal delay of 69 days constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and deserves to be accepted. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay application for filing appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, questioning the rejection of the condonation of delay application for filing the appeal. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services as an Air Travel Agent, faced a show cause notice for not discharging service tax liability on various services besides air travel. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to an unsuccessful appeal before the Commissioner. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal, seeking condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the appeal, which was rejected along with the appeal and stay application. The High Court intervened, considering the reason for the delay due to shifting the branch office and misplaced records. Despite the Tribunal's decision, the High Court found the appellant diligently pursued the matter and interfered to condone the delay, emphasizing the marginal delay and the appellant's proactive approach.

The High Court referenced Circular No.117/11/2009-ST but refrained from delving into the case's merits, focusing solely on allowing the appeal based on condonation of delay. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, emphasizing that the appellant's explanation for the delay, supported by the Branch Manager's affidavit regarding office shifting and misplaced records, constituted a sufficient cause for condonation. Unlike the case cited by the Tribunal, the appellant's conduct did not indicate negligence, justifying the acceptance of the plea for condonation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal without imposing any costs.