2018 (6) TMI 254 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of Delay of four years, nine months and twenty days in filing appeal - The taxable period involved in this case is from 01.05.2006 to 30.09.2009, the original order is dated 13.03.2012 and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is dated 28.01.2013 which was served on the applicant on 06.02.2013. Against this order, the applicant has filed appeal before the Tribunal on 01.03.2018. Held that - Admittedly, the delay sought to be condoned is inordinate - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Another v. MST. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT has no doubt held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone the delay to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on merits. In the case in hand the delay is inordinate, there is no effort to explain even in the application for condonation of delay that the applicant or any concerned person working for it was not aware of legal provisions as to the limitation. It is not even the applicant s case that they tried seeking advice by which the delay has occurred. The explanation put forth in bits and pieces, would not take us anywhere to even appreciate the attempts by the applicant. It is not a fit case for exercising the discretion of condoning the delay - application for COD rejected.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai involved a significant issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The delay in question was four years, nine months, and twenty days. The taxable period under consideration was from 01.05.2006 to 30.09.2009, with the original order dated 13.03.2012 and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.01.2013, served on the applicant on 06.02.2013. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 01.03.2018, leading to the need for condonation of the substantial delay.

The applicant argued that subsequent to the order-in-appeal, the Revenue did not pursue the demand, and there were discussions and amendments that could have impacted the case. On the other hand, the Authorized Representative for Revenue contended that the delay was substantial and should not be condoned, emphasizing that it was not for the applicant to take advantage of any lapse in pursuing the demand.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and examined the records. The judgment referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidelines on condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and the elastic nature of the expression "sufficient cause." The Tribunal highlighted that the delay sought to be condoned was inordinate and cited previous Supreme Court cases to underscore the importance of timely filing and the need for a rational, common-sense approach in such matters.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a plausible explanation for the substantial delay. The judgment noted that there was no effort to explain the lack of awareness of legal provisions or seeking advice to prevent the delay. As a result, the Tribunal held that, given the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was not a fit case for condoning the delay. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and the order was pronounced in court on 15.05.2018.