2015 (10) TMI 977 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 563 days - Held that - Appellant seeks condonation of delay of 563 days in filing appeal before the first appellate authority. In our considered view this application cannot be made before the Bench. Be that as it may the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal for belated filing of appeal before him, as it is settled law that he cannot condone beyond the period which could be done by him as per statute. We do not find anything wrong with the order passed by the first appellate authority as the law is clearly settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the first appellate authority.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The representative of the appellant sought an adjournment, citing the unavailability of their advocate due to prior commitments at the High Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the application for condonation of delay had already been listed previously, and an adjournment had been granted at that time as well. Despite the appellant's presence at the last hearing, the request for adjournment was dismissed by the Tribunal.

Upon reviewing the application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal observed that the appellant sought condonation of a significant delay of 563 days in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized that such applications for condonation cannot be entertained before the Bench. Furthermore, the first appellate authority had already dismissed the appeal due to the belated filing, as the law restricts the authority from condoning delays beyond a certain statutory period. The Tribunal referenced a precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. CCE 2008, which affirmed the limitation on condonation of delays by the appellate authority. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals themselves.

In summary, the judgment upholds the principle that delays in filing appeals before the first appellate authority must adhere to statutory limitations, as established by legal precedents. The Tribunal's decision was based on the settled law that the appellate authority cannot condone delays beyond the permissible period, leading to the dismissal of the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals in question.