2008 (11) TMI 366 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - petitioner did not file appeal within the time - after two years from the date of passing of the order - application to condone the delay in filing the appeal - and filed an affidavit along with the application - also enclosed a medical certificate issued by a doctor - appellant stated that copies of the documents sought for by him were not furnished to him - Tribunal rejected the application - Held that - cause shown by the petitioner cannot be considered as sufficient cause to condone the delay of nearly two years in filing the appeal - the application filed for condonation of delay rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore, seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, leading to the rejection of the application and the appeal itself. The petitioner had not filed the appeal within the prescribed time after the order by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin. Nearly two years later, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with an application to condone the delay, citing health issues and financial difficulties as reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the petitioner unsatisfactory, including the claim of suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis and financial constraints leading to a business closure and a trip to Dubai. The petitioner also mentioned the non-supply of certain documents by the Commissioner as a hindrance to filing the appeal on time. However, the Tribunal held that these reasons were not sufficient to justify the significant delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's failure to request the necessary documents promptly after receiving the original order was also noted as a lapse.

The Court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay lies with the Tribunal based on sufficient cause shown by the applicant. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the liability imposed by the Commissioner should be a relevant factor for condonation, the Court clarified that it cannot be the sole basis for granting such relief. Ultimately, the Court agreed with the Tribunal's decision to reject the application for condonation of delay, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner insufficient to warrant the delay of almost two years in filing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained and, therefore, rejected it. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing appeals and reiterated that reasons like health issues and non-receipt of documents must be genuinely justified to warrant condonation. The decision underscored the need for applicants to promptly address any obstacles to filing appeals within the prescribed timelines to avoid rejection based on insufficient cause.