2014 (8) TMI 54 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Held that - appellant by the belated appeal has caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue. In the case of Bhilware Zila Ex-Service Welfare Sahakari Samit v. Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhilwara, reported in 2010 (12) TMI 1039 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT . Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan had occasion to observe how assessees make false plea of service of orders on different persons other than the assessees and burden courts with application for condonation of delay. When there was considerable delay, cause of delay does not appear to be reasonable to condone the delay in this case being guided by the Apex Court decision in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy - 1998 (9) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . We have seen anxiety of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II - 2010 (12) TMI 675 - Supreme Court of India to protect interest of Revenue - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in seeking appeal remedy before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with an application for condonation of delay of one and a half years in seeking an appeal remedy before the Tribunal. The appellant bank had requested condonation, citing various reasons for the delay. However, the Tribunal scrutinized the affidavit submitted by the bank's Assistant General Manager and found discrepancies in the explanation provided. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of diligence and commitment, emphasizing that condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit. Citing a Supreme Court case, the judgment emphasized that government bodies must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays, failing which the appeals could be dismissed. The law of limitation was discussed, emphasizing that unreasonable and unexplained delays could render the remedy fatal.

The judgment underscored that public authorities, including the appellant, are expected to be vigilant and protect the state's interests without disregarding the law. It was noted that the appellant's lack of vigilance in pursuing the appeal in a timely manner had caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted the need for acceptable reasons for delays, cautioning against abusing the process of law by seeking condonation on flimsy grounds. The judgment emphasized that while there cannot be a presumption of deliberate delay, the reasons for delay must align with legal standards to be considered acceptable.

Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay in the present case due to the appellant's patent negligence, which jeopardized the interest of Revenue. The judgment concluded that granting condonation would reward the appellant's lack of vigilance and diligence in pursuing the appeal. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed all applications and appeals, emphasizing the need to protect the interest of Revenue and uphold the principles of law without granting leniency to indolence.