2010 (5) TMI 371 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - 35 days in filing the appeals - delay occurred due to resignation of the Finance Executive of the appellant s company - official who left the company did not bring to the notice of the management, the receipt of the impugned Order-in-Original and the new incumbent who after taking the charge, traced out the documents and filed the appeals - the Company has been litigating before the Tribunal and this Tribunal has already granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - delay of 35 days in filing the appeals is condoned and the COD applications are allowed

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeals due to resignation of Finance Executive.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, the issue involved was the condonation of a 35-day delay in filing appeals due to the resignation of the Finance Executive of the appellant's company. The delay occurred because the official who left the company did not inform the management about the receipt of the impugned Order-in-Original. The new incumbent, after taking charge, discovered the documents and filed the appeals. The appellant's Counsel argued that in similar matters, the Tribunal had previously granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. The appeals were listed for final disposal on 24-6-2010.

The Tribunal, consisting of Members M.V. Ravindran and P. Karthikeyan, considered the application for condonation of delay and reviewed the records. They noted that the applicant had been consistently contesting the same issue before the Tribunal, and the Bench had previously granted unconditional waiver of pre-deposit in similar cases. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the applicant had a justifiable cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Consequently, the delay of 35 days was condoned, and the applications for condonation were allowed. The Registry was instructed to accept the stay petitions and appeals for further proceedings.

The judgment, delivered by Member M.V. Ravindran, highlighted the importance of the applicant's history of contesting the issue before the Tribunal and the previous grant of unconditional waiver of pre-deposit. This history played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle of fairness and the applicant's justifiable reasons for the delay, ultimately leading to the allowance of the condonation applications and the acceptance of the appeals for further processing.