2018 (9) TMI 655 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - Held that - The rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. In the present case, it is application for condoning the gap of more than an year for challenging the order. It is an admitted fact that despite the order was received on 27.7.16 and was handed over to the consultant for further action (as mentioned) the appellant did not take any action till in January, 2018 i.e. till they have received notice from department for recovery of dues. There is no explanation for this long silence of the appellant himself nor there is any communication of the appellant with his consultant Shri Daga, pursuing his appeal to be filed in time. There is apparent mistake on the part of the counsel for the said delay - delay cannot be condoned - COD Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appellant, represented by a Chartered Accountant, sought condonation of delay citing reasons related to the negligence of their counsel. The appellant received the impugned order on 27.7.16 but failed to take any action until January 2018 when they were asked to deposit dues by the department. The appellant's counsel expressed inability to proceed further, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant relied on a previous decision to argue that the appellant should not suffer due to the counsel's mistake. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative objected to the request for condonation, highlighting the substantial delay of one and a half years without any cogent reason presented by the appellant.

The Tribunal emphasized that the rules of limitation are in place to ensure parties do not engage in dilatory tactics and seek remedies promptly. Despite the appellant's claim of reliance on their counsel, the Tribunal noted the lack of explanation for the prolonged inaction from the appellant's end. The Tribunal observed that there was no communication between the appellant and their consultant regarding the appeal during the significant delay period. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to condone the delay given the casual approach of the appellant and the substantial gap of one and a half years. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself.