2013 (12) TMI 1014 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Order of pre deposit - Held that - application needs to be dismissed as the appellant has no respect to the order of the Court directing them to deposit the amount and to report compliance before the first appellate authority. We find that the grounds which has been raised in the present miscellaneous application do not convince us to hold that appellant had genuine reasons for not depositing the amount in time and appear before the first appellate authority - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in making payment of pre-deposit and appearing before the first appellate authority.

In this case, the applicant filed an application for condonation of delay in making payment of pre-deposit and appearing before the first appellate authority as directed by the Bench in a previous order. The Bench had directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the service tax amount within eight weeks and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the appellant failed to comply and filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking modification of the stay order. The Bench dismissed the application for modification, and in the current miscellaneous application, the appellant sought condonation of the delay in payments already made by them. The appellant claimed to have deposited the amount in January 2013, but the Bench found that the appellant showed disrespect to the court order by not complying in a timely manner. The grounds raised in the application did not convince the Bench that the appellant had genuine reasons for the delay.

In the judgment, the Bench emphasized the importance of respecting court orders and complying with directions issued by the court. Despite the appellant's claim of depositing the amount in January 2013, the Bench found that the appellant failed to comply with the earlier order within the stipulated time frame. The Bench noted that the appellant's actions did not demonstrate genuine reasons for the delay in making the required payments and appearing before the first appellate authority. Consequently, the Bench dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application seeking condonation of the delay, highlighting the lack of convincing grounds for the delay and the appellant's non-compliance with the court's directives.

Overall, the judgment underscores the significance of adhering to court orders and fulfilling obligations imposed by the court promptly. The appellant's failure to comply with the earlier order to deposit the required amount within the specified time frame and report compliance to the first appellate authority resulted in the dismissal of the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of the delay. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting court decisions and promptly fulfilling obligations to ensure the smooth functioning of legal proceedings.