9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 288 - AT - Service TaxCondonation of delay - Held that - Chronology of events shows that the appellant is choosing the way to prevent Revenue to recover its legitimate dues. Abuse of process of law is apparent from the conduct of the appellant which does not permit to consider the length of delay to be reasonable. Because of stay application and appeal it does not merit consideration in view of conduct of the appellant noticed aforesaid. In view of the above finding, there is no alternative but to reject M.A. (COD) while giving due consideration to the interest of justice.
Issues: Delay in availing remedy of appeal, failure to appear before Tribunal, explanation for delay in filing appeal, suppression of facts, abuse of process of law.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal despite repeated notices and a direction from the Hon'ble High Court to decide on the appeal. The appellant received the impugned order in 2009 but filed the appeal in 2010, citing a delay of 259 days. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to the criminal proceedings faced by their counsel, which hindered the filing of the appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for not seeking alternative legal consultation during this period. The Tribunal found that the appellant deliberately suppressed the fact of the counsel's criminal proceedings, affecting the appellant's bona fide before the law. The record showed that other counsels were engaged in the appeal, but the appellant's conduct indicated an attempt to prevent the Revenue from recovering its dues, leading to an abuse of the legal process. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's conduct did not warrant a favorable consideration of the delay in filing the appeal. Due to the appellant's failure to provide a valid explanation and the abuse of the legal process, the Tribunal rejected the Miscellaneous Application (COD), the stay application, and the appeal itself. The judgment emphasized the importance of upholding the interest of justice and maintaining transparency in legal proceedings.
|
