2016 (6) TMI 235 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - in making pre-deposit - due to great difficulty, the applicant could manage to arrange the funds and deposited in installments with a delay of 27 days for an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only), 220 days for an amount of ₹ 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and 241 days for an amount of ₹ 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) - Held that - we allow the application and condone the delay in making the pre-deposit. - Delay condoned

Summary

Issues:
Delay in complying with Miscellaneous Order under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982.

Analysis:

1. The Appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay in complying with the Miscellaneous Order No. 23073/2014 under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules 1982. The Tribunal had directed the Appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ?12,00,000 within eight weeks and report compliance by a specified date. However, the Appellant could not deposit the full amount within the stipulated time and requested an extension, citing difficulties in arranging the funds. The Tribunal granted an extension, and the Appellant eventually deposited the amount in installments with delays ranging from 27 to 241 days. The Appellant prayed for the delay to be condoned so that the appeal could be considered on its merits.

2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Appellant and the Respondent's opposition. After hearing the Appellant's counsel, the Tribunal allowed the application and decided to condone the delay in making the pre-deposit. By granting this relief, the Tribunal enabled the appeal to proceed in its usual course, indicating that the delay in complying with the pre-deposit requirement would not hinder the consideration of the appeal on its merits.

3. The decision to condone the delay in depositing the pre-determined amount was crucial in ensuring that the Appellant's appeal could proceed without being prejudiced by the delay. The Tribunal's ruling highlighted the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the substantive consideration of the appeal's merits. By exercising discretion to condone the delay, the Tribunal upheld the principles of fairness and justice, allowing the Appellant to have their appeal heard on its substantive grounds rather than being disadvantaged by procedural shortcomings.