2014 (4) TMI 220 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal before the appellate Commissioner. - Commissioner denied condonation on the basis that the he has no power to condone delay - Held that - appeal if presented within a further period of 3 calendar months, beyond the initial period of three months specified in Section 85(3) and in terms of the proviso thereto, would fall within the discretionary ambit of the Commissioner (Appeals), liable for consideration. In seeking condition of delay, the appellant provided not clear and cogent grounds for seeking condonation except stating that the appellant s representative was out of station. - On this factual matrix, the appellant herein had failed to make out a case for condonation. There are, however, several decisions, which postulate the principle that a liberal view must be taken while considering an application for condonation of delay and that even where no wholly satisfactory cause is pleaded, the appellate court is not denuded of the discretion to condone the delay but on the terms as to costs. As the impugned order has rejected the appeal as a consequence of rejection of the application for condonation of delay, we refrain from going into the substantive merits of the appeal. Suffice it to notice that prima facie, the appellant herein appears to have an eminently arguable case on merits, to be presented before the Commissioner (Appeals), though the appeal was filed with delay not wholly explained satisfactorily - Delay condoned conditionally.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) based on limitation period for filing appeal.
- Disagreement on whether the appellate Commissioner had discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
- Interpretation of the period of limitation specified in the Finance Act, 1994.
- Application for condonation of delay by the appellant.
- Legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed limitation period. The primary issue revolved around whether the appellate Commissioner had the authority to condone the delay in such circumstances.

2. The disagreement between the parties centered on the interpretation of the period of limitation specified in the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant argued that the appeal was filed within the further period of three months as allowed by the proviso to Section 85(3) of the Act, while the Revenue contended that the appeal exceeded the permissible time frame for filing.

3. The appellant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as the authorized representative being out of station. However, the appellant failed to provide clear and cogent grounds justifying the delay, leading to a lack of sufficient cause for condonation.

4. Legal principles governing the condonation of delay in filing appeals were extensively discussed, emphasizing the need for satisfactory cause to be pleaded for seeking condonation. Various precedents were cited to highlight the discretionary nature of condonation of delay and the importance of providing satisfactory reasons for the delay.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal but imposed a condition for the appellant to remit costs to the credit of Revenue within a stipulated time frame. This decision was made considering the economic interest of the appellant at stake in the appeal and the need to balance the interests of both parties involved.

6. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation periods for filing appeals while also acknowledging the discretionary power of the appellate authority to condone delays under specific circumstances. The decision to condone the delay was made with the aim of ensuring a fair adjudication of the appeal on its merits, subject to the condition imposed regarding costs.