2017 (4) TMI 436 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Period of limitation - Held that - As the reason stated by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the accountant left the job and demand being on lower side and the status of the appellant can be understood that appellant is poor person. In that circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to grant an opportunity to the appellant of being heard on merits - Appeal allowed by of remand.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and grant of opportunity to be heard on merits.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, the issue revolved around the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard on merits. The appellant had filed an appeal along with an application for stay, citing that the accountant had left the job without intimating about the proceedings with the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal citing Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, without giving the benefit of extended period of limitation. However, the Tribunal, after considering the facts and the circumstances, found that the appellant had filed the appeal within the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal acknowledged the reasons provided by the appellant's counsel, such as the accountant leaving the job, the demand being on the lower side, and the poor status of the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appellant on merits within a specified period. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal and application accordingly, granting the appellant the opportunity to present their case.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances and reasons behind delays in filing appeals, especially when genuine reasons such as personnel changes and financial constraints are involved. It highlights the discretionary power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone such delays in the interest of justice and ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to be heard on merits. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified time frame underscores the procedural aspect of providing a timely hearing to the appellant. Overall, the judgment reflects a balanced approach to addressing delays in legal proceedings while upholding the principles of natural justice and fairness in the adjudication process.