2014 (12) TMI 740 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Improper guidance - Rejection of stay application - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay caused in preferring the appeal - Held that - From the facts stated in the memorandum of application, it appears that the work carried out by the appellant is mainly in the nature of labour work, as such, the case put forth by the appellant that he were not aware of the intricacies of law, and therefore, could not approach the Tribunal in time appears to be quite plausible. It appears that the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant before the appellate authority and, therefore, relied upon him to give him proper guidance. However, since no proper guidance was given till the appellant contacted the learned advocate who represents him before the Tribunal, there was a delay in preferring the appeal. Moreover, the appellant has shown his bona fides by depositing 75% of the amount. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in summarily rejecting the application without properly applying its mind to the explanation given by the appellant. It is by now well settled that the court while considering an application for condonation of delay should adopt a pragmatic approach which furthers the cause of justice and not a narrow or pedantic approach. In the present case, the delay in preferring the appeal is not so huge so as to cause any undue prejudice to the respondent. Under the circumstances, if the delay is condoned, the only consequence would be that the appellant s appeal would be heard on merits. In the aforesaid premises, in the interest of substantial justice, the delay caused in preferring the appeal before the Tribunal is required to be condoned. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay in preferring appeal - Dismissal of stay application and appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal seeking condonation of a 189-day delay in preferring the appeal. The appellant contended that being engaged in labor work, they were not well-versed in legal intricacies and relied on advice from a Chartered Accountant. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in not condoning the delay, claiming they were not provided proper guidance initially. The respondent opposed the appeal, asserting that the Tribunal's decision was justified as the appellant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory.

The High Court considered the appeal, admitting it for further review. The primary question for consideration was whether the Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The appellant had approached the Tribunal 189 days late due to lack of awareness about service tax provisions and confusion regarding proper guidance for filing the appeal. The appellant had initially sought advice from consultants and advocates, who did not provide clear direction. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, citing insufficient reasons provided by the appellant.

The Court noted that the appellant's delay was due to reliance on the Chartered Accountant for guidance, which was not provided adequately until the appellant contacted a learned advocate. The Court criticized the Tribunal's non-speaking order, emphasizing the need for reasons when rejecting such applications. It observed that the delay did not prejudice the respondent and the appellant acted in good faith by depositing 75% of the amount. The Court emphasized a pragmatic approach in condoning delays to serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the Court held in favor of the appellant, stating that the Tribunal was unjustified in not condoning the delay.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashing the Tribunal's order and condoning the delay in preferring the appeal. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits in accordance with the law.