2013 (6) TMI 513 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 134 days - it was submitted that file of the present matter was misplaced in the office of the counsel of the appellant due to the mistake on the part of the clerk. - Held that - it is seen that the applicant did not mention the name of the counsel to whom it was handed over for preparation of the appeal. Further, it is not mentioned when the appeal papers were handed over to the learned counsel. In any event, we find that on the identical facts the Tribunal in the case of Magic Fasteners (P) Ltd. (2009 (5) TMI 633 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) rejected the condonation of delay application. - Against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, sufficiency of reasons for delay

The judgment pertains to an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, where the applicant sought to excuse a delay of 134 days. The applicant's counsel explained that the delay was due to the misplaced file in the counsel's office, which was later found and the appeal papers were promptly prepared. However, the Joint Commissioner (AR) opposed the application, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient. The Joint Commissioner cited previous tribunal decisions to support the opposition. The tribunal, after considering the records and affidavit, noted that crucial details such as the name of the counsel and the date of handing over the appeal papers were missing. The tribunal referred to a similar case where delay condonation was denied due to a misplaced file. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In this judgment, the main issue revolved around whether the delay of 134 days in filing the appeal should be condoned. The applicant attributed the delay to the misplaced file in the counsel's office, which caused a delay in preparing the appeal papers. The applicant's argument was supported by an affidavit from a partner of the firm. However, the Joint Commissioner contended that the reasons provided were not sufficient for condonation of the delay. The tribunal, after careful consideration, found that key details regarding the handover of the appeal papers were missing from the applicant's submission. Additionally, the tribunal referred to a previous case where a similar delay due to a misplaced file was not condoned. This lack of specific information, combined with the precedent set by the previous case, led the tribunal to reject the application for condonation of delay.

The tribunal's decision was influenced by the absence of crucial details in the applicant's submission, such as the name of the counsel and the date of handing over the appeal papers. The tribunal emphasized the importance of providing complete and specific information when seeking condonation of delay. By referencing a prior case with similar circumstances, where delay condonation was denied, the tribunal established a consistent approach in handling such situations. Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that the reasons presented by the applicant were not sufficient to warrant condonation of the 134-day delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.