2013 (5) TMI 394 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - only reason forwarded by the appellants for delay is that his advocate was instructed to prepare and file the appeal papers - Held that - Delay on account of diligence or inaction on the part of the assessee. Things are required to be done by the assessee in a particular manner and within the framework of time granted by the legislation, Courts expect the appellant to be diligent. The present assessee has not shown us any reasons in support of their defence, to accept their explanation inasmuch as they have not even contended that after handing over the papers to the advocates, they kept on inquiring from them about filing of appeal. Certificate of the concerned advocate to whom papers were handed over is also not available on the record supporting the ground taken by the appellant. Thus reasons put forth by the appellant are not bonafide and the delay could have been easily avoided by them by acting with normal care and caution. COD rejected.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal; Whether the explanation provided constitutes reasonable cause for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a significant delay of 1043 days in filing an appeal, raising the issue of whether the explanation provided by the appellant is sufficient to justify condonation of the delay. The appellant claimed that their advocate was instructed to file the appeal papers, but failed to provide evidence to support this claim.

2. The appellant cited precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy and the Calcutta High Court's decision in Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd., where delays were condoned based on specific circumstances. However, the Departmental Representative relied on cases where delays were not condoned due to inadequate explanations, emphasizing the importance of a satisfactory explanation for condonation.

3. The tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal construction of the term "sufficient cause" but noted that deliberate inaction or negligence cannot be considered sufficient cause. The tribunal highlighted the importance of diligence on the part of the appellant in meeting legal requirements within the specified timeframe.

4. Ultimately, the tribunal found that the appellant's reasons for the delay were not bona fide, as they failed to show diligence in following up with the advocate or ensuring the necessary documents were prepared and filed in a timely manner. The absence of a certificate from the advocate further weakened the appellant's case, leading to the rejection of the condonation of delay application and dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.

5. The judgment underscores the principle that each case must be evaluated based on its unique circumstances, with a focus on the appellant's diligence and the sufficiency of the explanation provided for the delay. In this instance, the tribunal found the appellant's actions lacking in diligence and rejected the condonation of delay application, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.