2013 (6) TMI 263 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - delay of 69 days - held that - By adopting the guidelines laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village Versus Bhargavi Amma (Dead) By LRs & Ors. 2008 (7) TMI 836 - SUPREME COURT , we deem it fit that the appellant has to be shown some leniency in the present case for the purpose of condoning the delay before Commissioner (Appeals). The circumstances explained by the appellant cannot be held leading to any conscious delay or dilatory tactics on their behalf. As such we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on merits. The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay but sufficient of a satisfactory explanation - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Principles for condonation of delay

In this case, the main issue was the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the appellant being away from the office. The delay was 14 days, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the appeal as time-barred due to a delay of 69 days. The appellant had cited the departure of their excise person as the reason for the delay, as all relevant papers were with him. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the principles for condonation of delay, emphasizing a liberal construction of "sufficient cause" under the Limitation Act to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the circumstances explained by the appellant did not indicate any deliberate delay or dilatory tactics, leading them to set aside the Commissioner's order and direct a decision on the appeal's merits after condoning the delay. The Tribunal concluded by disposing of the COD application, stay petition, and appeal accordingly.