2013 (11) TMI 1504 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - No specific reason mentioned in application - Held that - Merely averring accident of spouse of an employee, appellant is not absolved of its obligation to adhere to the limitation prescribed by law. When the fact situation does not demonstrate now the appellant was prevented by the cause of spouse of an employee to seek appeal remedy. Appellants have not explained anything on this court. Laxity does not add to longevity to a remedy which exhausts with the callous and abuse of process of law following doctrine of resjudicata. Casual approach of appellant shows its scanty regard to law. Had there been bona fide, the appellant would have pursued its right duly. But that has not come to record. No vigilant attitude of appellant is visible from record - if the appeal is thrown at the threshold, the appellant shall suffer. But the appellant having caused prejudice to other side, law of limitation shall not grant him any immunity today. We are also conscious that no one shall prefer to cause prejudice himself following the decision of the apex court in Collector Vs. Land Acquisition, Anantnag and other vs. Mst. Katiji and Others 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court . But this is not the case where the appellant has acted bona fide. Therefore the stay application for condonation of delay does not deserve any consideration - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Abuse of process of law, Law of limitation

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, the issue revolves around the delay of 414 days in filing an appeal by the appellant, seeking condonation of the said delay. The appellant's employee, involved in the treatment of his wife due to an accident resulting in amputation of her right leg, was cited as the reason for the delay. However, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide substantial reasons for the delay, drawing misplaced sympathy without valid grounds. The Revenue argued that the delay caused prejudice to their legitimate dues, as no reasonable cause was shown for the lengthy delay.

The tribunal examined the records, including the affidavit and bank draft renewal for appeal fees. It was noted that the appellant received the order being appealed on 7.3.2012, with the limitation expiring on 6.6.2012. The affidavit submitted did not sufficiently establish the connection between the employee's wife's accident and the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal observed discrepancies in the appellant's submissions, with the original application for condonation of delay not mentioning the accident, raising doubts about the appellant's intentions and causing prejudice to Revenue.

The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for filing appeals, highlighting the necessity of limiting litigation to prevent perpetuation without a time-bound resolution. It underscored that the right of appeal must be exercised within the prescribed period, and failure to do so diminishes the right over time. The law of limitation, grounded in public policy, aims to prevent unending uncertainty and anarchy by imposing time constraints on legal remedies.

The tribunal concluded that the appellant's delay was unreasonable and unexplained, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and stay application. Despite the potential prejudice to the appellant, the tribunal held that the law of limitation would not grant immunity in cases where the delay was not bona fide. The judgment cited legal precedents to support the decision, emphasizing the need for acceptable reasons for delay in seeking condonation. Ultimately, the tribunal dismissed the appeal and stay application due to the appellant's failure to demonstrate a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal.