2019 (1) TMI 822 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 203 days in filing the appeal - appeal could not be filed due to restructuring of the respondent in view of introduction of Goods and Services Tax regime - Held that - In the present facts, it is found that because of the introduction of GST regime, the entire department has to be restructured. Thus, even though approval had been taken on 21st June, 2017 to challenge the impugned order dated 17th March, 2017 before this Court, the same could not be done by the Commissioner of Service Tax, as the reorganisation became effective from 1st July, 2017. It is only thereafter that the applicant started the process and filed the accompanying Appeal. The delay is sufficiently explained and is rightly condoned - Notice of Motion is allowed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal from an Order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The judgment deals with a Motion for condonation of a 203-day delay in filing an appeal from an Order dated 17th March, 2017, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Affidavit of an Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise supported the Motion, explaining the delay. The impugned order was received by the applicant on 4th May, 2018, and approval from a superior authority was received on 21st June, 2017. However, due to restructuring of the respondent after the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax regime, the appeal could not be filed promptly. The restructuring led to the applicant receiving files from the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-1, and the appeal was filed only after locating the necessary papers during this process.

The Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent opposed the condonation application, citing a previous decision of the Court in Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kanyani Bakery, Pune, where a delay of 2088 days was not condoned due to insufficient explanation. The Court noted the reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chief Post Master General & others v. Living Media India Ltd., emphasizing that delay should not be condoned as a matter of course without a justifiable reason. However, in the present case, the delay was attributed to the restructuring of the department post-GST regime introduction, leading to a delay in filing the appeal despite obtaining approval earlier. The Court found the reasons indicated in the Motion satisfactory and, therefore, decided to condone the delay.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the Notice of Motion in terms of the prayer clause, thereby granting condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The judgment highlights the importance of providing valid reasons for delays in legal proceedings and considers the impact of significant changes such as restructuring due to policy shifts on the timeliness of filing appeals.