2018 (8) TMI 1400 - AT - Service Tax

Condonable period of delay in filing appeal - relevant date of filing appeal - whether the appellant had filed their appeal within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of impugned order in original before Commissioner (Appeals), i.e. including the condonable period of 30 days? Held that - The appellant have filed the appeal on 9.12.2013 which was to be taken to be date of filing though it was filed at the wrong office of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal was within the condonable period - Finding the delay reasonably explained, it is held that appeal was filed within the condonable period and there was reasonable cause for the delay. The delay in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned - matter remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing the appeal within the prescribed period including the condonable period.

Analysis:
The central issue in this appeal revolved around the timeliness of filing the appeal, specifically whether the appellant had adhered to the stipulated period of 90 days from the date of passing of the impugned order in original before the Commissioner (Appeals), which includes a condonable period of 30 days. The order in original was dated 9.5.2013, dispatched on 13.05.2013, and received by the appellant on 16.9.2013. The appellant filed the appeal on 9.12.2013, which was beyond the 60-day limitation period from the date of receipt of the order. However, the appellant argued that the delay was due to health reasons, being a person suffering from a specific disease, which necessitated assistance for movement. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay but found it to be reasonably explained, thus holding that the appeal was filed within the condonable period.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, concluded that the appeal was indeed filed on 9.12.2013, despite being submitted at the wrong office of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal accepted the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to health issues that required assistance for mobility. Given the reasonable cause for the delay, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the merits after giving the appellants an opportunity to present their case and submit additional grounds and arguments as advised.

In summary, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of considering individual circumstances, such as health issues, in determining the timeliness of filing appeals and exercising discretion to condone delays when justified. The decision highlighted the need for a fair and just approach in legal proceedings, taking into account the practical challenges faced by appellants in meeting procedural requirements.