2015 (5) TMI 456 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - Tribunal has rejected the delay condonation application by impugned order by observing that the petitioner - original appellant has not given any justifiable reason for filing the appeal belatedly. It is true that the petitioner - original appellant ought to have and/or could have submitted elaborate reasons to justify the reason for filing the appeal belatedly. However, considering the fact that the petitioner - original appellant is a Society of the Members - Land Loosers Farmers and as such, there do not appear to be any mala fide intention in not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and/or filing the appeal belatedly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on imposing a reasonable cost, we are inclined to condone the delay and direct the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay condonation application for filing an appeal, rejection of delay condonation application by the learned Tribunal, justification for filing the appeal belatedly, imposition of cost, quashing and setting aside the impugned order, direction to decide the appeal without raising limitation issue, payment of deposited amount to the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners, a Cooperative Society of Land Loosers Farmers, challenged an order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Tribunal rejecting their application to condone a delay of approximately 475 days in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The learned Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application, stating that the original appellant did not provide sufficient justifiable reasons for the delay. However, considering the nature of the petitioner Society as a Society of Land Loosers Farmers and the absence of any malicious intent in the delay, the High Court decided to condone the delay and instructed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal.

3. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 with the Court following an earlier order. Due to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting the delay condonation application and imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000, which the petitioner had already deposited.

4. The High Court directed the Tribunal to decide and dispose of the appeal without raising the limitation issue but subject to complying with other statutory provisions. The Registry was instructed to return the deposited amount to the respondent, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Vadodara II, by handing over a cheque to the respondent's counsel.

5. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the extent of quashing the impugned order, allowing the appeal to proceed without limitation issues, and facilitating the return of the deposited amount to the respondent.