2018 (9) TMI 575 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 55 days in filing appeal - time limitation - delay of 55 days in filing the appeal beyond the statutory period of 3 months - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - From the medical certificate and the prescriptions placed on record, it is seen that the proprietor of the appellant, which is a proprietorship firm, was having medical problems for which he was receiving treatment and the same was brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). Even though the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has mentioned about it in Para 4 (1) (ii) of her order, the same appear to have been completely disregarded and no finding whatsoever has been given on it while considering the application for condonation of delay. When the appellant has made specific ground for condonation of delay along with documentary evidence, and the same has not been considered by the first appellate authority, it would be appropriate to remand the matter back to Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider all the grounds in the application for condonation of delay - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) based on delay in filing, contention regarding confusion due to multiple show cause notices, medical illness as reason for delay, consideration of evidence for condonation of delay, remand for re-consideration by Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant filed an appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay of 55 days in filing beyond the statutory period of 3 months. The appellant argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) contained mistakes, including the wrong date of receipt of the order-in-original. They claimed the delay was due to confusion caused by two show cause notices issued by different divisions for the same period. Additionally, they stated that the appellant, a proprietorship firm, couldn't file the appeal on time due to the medical illness of the proprietor, supported by medical documents not considered during the condonation application. The Revenue representative contended that the reasons for condonation of delay were not satisfactorily explained by the appellant.

Upon examination, it was found that the order-in-original was actually communicated on 30.12.2010, not on the date incorrectly mentioned in the order. The confusion caused by the two show cause notices for the same period and offense was acknowledged. The medical issues of the proprietor, supported by medical evidence, were highlighted, noting that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider this evidence while deciding on the condonation of delay. As the grounds for condonation, along with documentary evidence, were not properly considered, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-evaluation in accordance with the law and the observations made.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand for the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the grounds for condonation of delay, taking into account all the evidence and submissions presented by the appellant.