2016 (12) TMI 1182 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim of unutilised CENVAT credit - rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 - appeal dismissed on ground of delay - Held that - the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Commissioner (A) was not intentional and deliberate and therefore delay is condoned in filing the appeals - appeals to be decided on merit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeals by Commissioner (A) on the ground of limitation without considering merits.
- Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
- Applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the order of the Commissioner (A) dated 10.6.2015, which dismissed the appeals as time-barred without delving into the merits of the case. The impugned order was common to both appeals, leading to their disposal through a single order.

2. The appellant, registered for Information Technology and Consulting Engineering Services, filed refund claims for unutilized CENVAT credit for two quarters in 2012. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claims, prompting the appeal to the Commissioner (A), who dismissed it due to a delay in filing, citing discrepancies in the date of receipt on the original cover.

3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and should have been condoned by the Commissioner (A) for the sake of substantive justice. He referenced a Karnataka High Court decision where delay in filing an appeal was condoned, emphasizing the need for a liberal approach in such matters.

4. The Judicial Member, after considering the submissions and adopting a liberal approach, concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the impugned order was set aside. The Commissioner (A) was directed to hear the appeals on merit, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present their case and relevant documents.

5. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, indicating a favorable outcome for the appellant. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 08/11/2016, marking the resolution of the appeal against the dismissal based on limitation and the subsequent condonation of the filing delay.