2019 (3) TMI 861 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay of 932 days in filing appeal - Section 35G(2)(a) of CEA - Held that - It is very clear that the person aggrieved can approach the High Court within 180 days from the date the order is received and in the event the parties failed to approach the High Court within the time allowed then the High Court has been given power to condone the delay if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The party in default i.e. not approaching the High Court within the period of limitation as provided under Section 35G(2)(a), is required to show sufficient cause for approaching the High Court beyond such period of limitation - there is no question of any bona-fide to justify that after payment of Service Tax alongwith interest the penalty was also waived. Such, a presumption is not acceptable in absence of any cogent material on record. The facts of the present case is clearly show a gross negligence and deliberate in action in not approaching the Court within the prescribed time for filing an appeal before this Court - The appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning such a huge delay of 932 days. Delay condonation application is rejected - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation application under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Liability for payment of Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service'.
3. Contestation of penalty imposed in Order-in-Original.
4. Applicability of Section 35G(2)(a) and 35G(2A) for filing appeals in High Court.
5. Requirement of showing sufficient cause for condoning delay in approaching the High Court.
6. Validity of reasons presented for condoning the delay.
7. Consideration of medical grounds for delay condonation.
8. Application of legal precedents in delay condonation cases.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a delay condonation application filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning a dispute over the payment of Service Tax categorized as 'Business Auxiliary Service'. The appellant contested a penalty imposed in an Order-in-Original, challenging it up to the Tribunal, which confirmed the penalty. The High Court noted the limitation period under Section 35G(2)(a) for filing appeals and the provision under Section 35G(2A) allowing condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

The court emphasized the necessity for the party in default to demonstrate sufficient cause for approaching the High Court beyond the prescribed limitation period. Despite the appellant's argument of a bona fide belief regarding the Service Tax liability, the court found the reasons presented for condoning the delay inadequate. The appellant's claim of severe illness as a reason for delay was scrutinized, with the court highlighting discrepancies in the medical certification provided.

Citing legal precedents, including the case of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Limited, the court emphasized the requirement for a reasonable and acceptable explanation for delay to warrant condonation. The court concluded that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for condoning the substantial delay of 932 days, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application and dismissal of the appeal solely on this ground.

In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of meeting statutory timelines for approaching the High Court, the necessity of demonstrating valid reasons for delay condonation, and the critical evaluation of medical grounds or other justifications presented for condoning delays in legal proceedings.