2014 (1) TMI 149 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of a delay - Documents not provided - Held that - an appellate or other litigative remedy should not be permitted to fail merely on account of a delay in preferring the remedy; a liberal view must be taken in considering an explanation offered for delay; if reasonable cause is offered, the extent of the delay would per-se not be a factor for negating a prayer for condonation of delay; and while considering a plea for condonation, the explanation offered for the delay must be duly considered. While condonation of delay is a matter of exercise of discretion of the Court, it must be recognized that the discretion is a discretion of the law and not the subjective discretion of the judge. Judicial discretion should always be exercised on the basis of consecrated principles informed by tradition and norms. Exercise of discretion on an assumption that a judge is provided a reservoir of eleemosynary Jurisdiction would be a negation of liberty. While the extent of delay is per-se not the sole criterion, what is critical is that the delay must be explained - there is no satisfactory cause whatsoever pleaded or established for the extraordinary of delay 431 days in preferring the appeal - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 431 days in preferring the appeal, Condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a case where the Deputy Commissioner confirmed a service tax demand for providing Business Auxiliary Service. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), following which the petitioner appealed to the Tribunal. The petitioner sought condonation of a 431-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to the counsel's failure to provide relevant documents. The Tribunal found the reasons for the delay vague and unsatisfactory, lacking specific details or justifications for the extraordinary delay.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of explaining delays in appeals, citing various Supreme Court judgments. It highlighted that a liberal view should be taken in considering explanations for delays, but the delay must be justified. While discretion in condoning delays lies with the court, it must be based on established principles and not arbitrary decisions. In this case, the Tribunal found no legitimate cause for the 431-day delay and dismissed the application for condonation, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

Overall, the judgment underscores the necessity of providing valid reasons for delays in filing appeals, even when seeking condonation. It emphasizes that while a liberal approach is encouraged, delays must be adequately explained to warrant condonation. In this instance, the lack of a satisfactory cause for the delay led to the dismissal of the application and rejection of the appeal.