2014 (11) TMI 466 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in having completely ignored the medical certificate filed in support of the delay condonation petition and dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that none appeared for the appellant before it - Held that - Tribunal had failed to take note of the medical certificate issued for the purpose of condonation of delay. We have taken pains to peruse such a certificate filed at page 26 of the typed set of papers. It says that the appellant was suffering from HT- Angina and is advised not to travel long distance, since 20.7.2012 to 24.4.2013. The mere certificate from a doctor without any corresponding record, to show that the appellant was taking medical treatment during that period, cannot be accepted. Even the affidavit filed in support of the condonation petition says ill health supported by this certificate, which is bereft of details. It is also not clear whether this certificate was issued by the doctor, who treated the appellant and the certificate was issued on the basis of some material. The condonation of delay based on such vague affidavit and supporting vague certificate does not inspire this Court to consider the plea that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay application, substantial questions of law.

Analysis:
The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was filed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the case for non-prosecution as neither the appellant nor the authorized representatives appeared on two occasions despite being given adjournments. The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's dismissal based on the medical certificate and the alleged lack of opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal should not adopt a pedantic approach in matters of condonation of delay and that technicalities should not hinder substantial justice. However, the Court found that the appellant, advocate, and tax consultant did not appear before the Tribunal despite being listed for hearing. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Court is not a remedy for the party's lethargy and laid-back attitude, as it would lead to clogging the wheels of justice.

The Court referred to guidelines from a previous decision emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condonation of delay applications. It highlighted the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and noted that lack of diligence from the party seeking condonation is a relevant factor. The Court scrutinized the medical certificate provided by the appellant and found it lacking in detail and supporting evidence of medical treatment during the period mentioned.

Ultimately, the Court confirmed the Tribunal's order, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The Court found no reason to entertain the appeal due to the lack of diligence in pursuing the matter and the insufficiency of the medical certificate provided. The principles from the previous decision were applied to conclude that lack of bona fides from the party seeking condonation of delay is a significant factor in such cases. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.