2015 (8) TMI 255 - AT - Service Tax

Restoration of appeal - Non compliance with pre deposit order - Held that - There has been delay of more than 5 years in complying with the pre-deposit order. However, on perusal of payment details, the appellant took initiative to pay the amounts in various instalments starting from 2009 to Dec 2013 which clearly indicates appellant s genuine interest in pursuing the appeal. Keeping in view conduct of appellant and their financial constraints as well as the case law relied upon, the delay is condoned - Appeal restored.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with pre-deposit order.
2. Delay in compliance with pre-deposit order.
3. Condonation of delay in depositing the pre-deposit amount.

Compliance with Pre-deposit Order:
The appellant was directed to deposit a specific amount, taking into account the amount already paid. Despite failing to comply with the order initially, the appellant later deposited additional amounts on various dates, demonstrating their effort to meet the pre-deposit requirement. The appellant cited financial constraints as the reason for the delay in depositing the full amount.

Delay in Compliance with Pre-deposit Order:
The appellant's delay in complying with the pre-deposit order was over 5 years. The respondent vehemently opposed the application, arguing that such a lengthy delay was not justified. However, the appellant consistently made payments in installments from 2009 to 2013, indicating a genuine interest in pursuing the appeal despite financial limitations.

Condonation of Delay in Depositing the Pre-deposit Amount:
After considering both parties' arguments and reviewing the payment details, the tribunal acknowledged the significant delay but noted the appellant's efforts to gradually fulfill the pre-deposit requirement. Citing the appellant's financial constraints and the case law precedent, the tribunal decided to condone the delay and allowed the appellant's application for restoration of the appeal to its original status.

In conclusion, despite the substantial delay in compliance with the pre-deposit order, the tribunal recognized the appellant's genuine efforts and financial challenges, ultimately deciding to condone the delay and restore the appeal to its original number.