2019 (5) TMI 162 - HC - Service Tax

Principles of Natural Justice - time limitation - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - HELD THAT - The Tribunal found that there is inordinate delay of 1,103 days and the reason assigned by the appellant is flimsy and will not connote sufficient cause - We cannot differ with the finding recorded by the Tribunal because the delay is 1,103 days and the explanation offered is that some of the employees/managers have left the establishment and they did not bring to the notice of the appellant/management about the order in appeal, dated 05.03.2015. Therefore, we would have been well justified in confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeal. This order shall not be treated as precedent, since this order is passed taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, so as to enable the appellant to prosecute their appeal before the Tribunal and we also propose to impose further condition. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the final order passed by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
- Substantial Questions of Law raised regarding the dismissal of the appeal for condonation of delay and denial of substantive right of appeal granted under the Finance Act, 1994

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the final order of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the dismissal of the appeal for condonation of delay. The substantial questions of law raised included whether the tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without following established principles and denying the appellant its substantive right of appeal under the Finance Act, 1994.

2. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of a significant delay of 1,103 days, with the appellant failing to provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have considered a more liberal and justice-oriented approach based on previous Supreme Court judgments.

3. The High Court acknowledged the substantial delay but noted that the appellant had paid the entire tax liability, with only the penalty remaining. Considering this, the Court decided to exercise discretion for condonation of the delay, even though the delay was substantial.

4. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order, with the condition that the appellant deposits a specific sum before the Adjudicating Authority within a specified period. Upon fulfilling this condition, the delay in filing the appeal would be condoned, allowing the Tribunal to entertain and decide the appeal on its merits and in accordance with the law.

5. The Court emphasized that its order should not be treated as a precedent, as it was based on the unique circumstances of the case. The appellant was granted the opportunity to pursue their appeal before the Tribunal, subject to the conditions set by the High Court.

6. In conclusion, the civil miscellaneous appeal was allowed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed, resolving the issues raised regarding the dismissal of the appeal for condonation of delay and the denial of the appellant's substantive right of appeal under the Finance Act, 1994.