2023 (4) TMI 443 - SCH - Service Tax

Refusal to condone the delay of 109 days in preferring the Appeal before the CESTAT - malafide intent or not - HELD THAT - Considering the fact that there was a delay of only 109 days in preferring the Appeal and there does not appear to be any other mala fide intention on the part of the appellant in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation and so as to enable the appellant to submit the case on merits rather than non-suiting the appellant on the ground of delay, the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed by the CESTAT in refusing to condone the delay are set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Delay in filing appeal before CESTAT, condonation of delay, setting aside impugned orders, hearing and disposal of appeal by CESTAT.

Delay in Filing Appeal Before CESTAT:
The appellant challenged the High Court's judgment that dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 109 days in filing the appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The appellant sought condonation of this delay to present the case on its merits.

Condonation of Delay:
After hearing both parties, the Supreme Court acknowledged the 109-day delay but found no mala fide intention on the appellant's part. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and CESTAT's order refusing to condone the delay. The Supreme Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellant to present the case on its merits rather than being non-suited due to the delay.

Setting Aside Impugned Orders:
The Supreme Court's order effectively nullified the High Court's decision and CESTAT's order regarding the delay in filing the appeal. By setting aside these orders, the Supreme Court granted the appellant the opportunity to have the appeal heard and decided on its merits by CESTAT.

Hearing and Disposal of Appeal by CESTAT:
With the delay condoned, the Supreme Court directed CESTAT to proceed with hearing, deciding, and disposing of the appeal in accordance with the law and based on its own merits. This directive ensures that the appellant will have the chance to present the case before CESTAT without being prejudiced by the initial delay in filing the appeal.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that no costs were to be awarded. By condoning the delay and setting aside the impugned orders, the Court ensured that the appellant would have the opportunity to have the appeal heard and decided on its merits by CESTAT, without being disadvantaged by the initial delay in filing the appeal.