2015 (8) TMI 349 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay of 60 days - Held that - A letter for adjournment of personal hearing was submitted by the appellant which was not taken into consideration by the first appellate authority for deciding the appeal and condonation of delay. There is thus, violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the first appellate authority is required to be set-aside and the same is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding on condonation of delay in filing of appeal. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Violation of principles of natural justice in not considering a letter for adjournment of personal hearing leading to delay in filing appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Mr. H.K. Thakur pertains to an appeal where the appellant, represented by Shri S. Suriyanarayanan, Advocate, raised a crucial issue regarding the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant contended that there was a delay of 60 days, which could be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the existing provisions. It was highlighted that the first appellate authority, in its order dated 05.12.2012, had erroneously stated that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and no adjournment request was received. However, the appellant's Advocate had indeed submitted a letter on 29.11.2012, requesting an adjournment due to unavoidable reasons. This letter was acknowledged by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) Surat on the same day.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the case records, Mr. H.K. Thakur observed a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. It was noted that the first appellate authority had not taken into consideration the appellant's letter requesting an adjournment of the personal hearing, which was crucial for deciding on the condonation of delay. Consequently, the judgment set aside the order dated 05.12.2012 passed by the first appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Importantly, it was emphasized that the appellant must be given a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances surrounding the delay.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals), ensuring that the principles of natural justice are upheld, and the appellant's right to a fair hearing is respected. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all relevant factors, including requests for adjournment, in the process of deciding on the condonation of delay in legal proceedings.