2018 (8) TMI 690 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - difference of opinion - Held that - There was admitted delay of 79 days inclusive of 30 days condonable period available with the Commissioner but the ground cited by the appellant that the person in charge of Excise matter left the job and the matter could not go to the commercial head of the company who was out of station in connection with audit in Chennai plant appear to be reasonable. The delay of 79 days is condoned and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal to condone delay in filing appeal against adjudication order by Commissioner (Appeals)

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the refusal by the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone a 79-day delay in filing an appeal against an adjudication order. The appellant cited reasons for the delay, including the absence of the commercial head and the person in charge of Excise matter leaving the job. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned based on case laws, including Supreme Fibre Glass Inc. and Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. The respondent department, represented by Shri Dilip Shinde, contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly refused to condone the delay beyond the statutory period. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Singh Enterprises to support their argument.

The Tribunal acknowledged the admitted delay of 79 days, inclusive of the condonable period of 30 days. The Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for the delay reasonable, considering the circumstances. It was noted that while procedural rules are essential for the judicial system, substantial justice should not be compromised solely on procedural grounds. The Tribunal also observed that other grounds mentioned in the appeal memo required adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) to serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal rectified the order to provide clarity and ensure compliance with legal principles. The judgment highlighted the limitations on the power of condonation beyond the statutory period, as established in the Singh Enterprises case. The High Court and the Supreme Court had both ruled against condoning the delay beyond the specified period, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations. The Tribunal differentiated between the powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal in extending time limits and condoning delays, citing relevant legal precedents.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of advancing the cause of justice while considering limitations prescribed by special laws. It discussed the applicability of principles under the Limitation Act to ensure fairness in legal proceedings. The Tribunal also addressed its jurisdiction to condone delays and refer cases back for fresh adjudication under Section 35C of the Central Excise Act. The judgment concluded by modifying the order to condone the 79-day delay and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, in line with the principles of natural justice and legal provisions.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment focused on the refusal to condone a delay in filing an appeal against an adjudication order by the Commissioner (Appeals). By considering the reasons for the delay, legal precedents, and statutory limitations, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and remand the matter for fresh adjudication. The judgment underscored the importance of balancing procedural rules with the principles of justice to ensure a fair and equitable legal process.