2015 (10) TMI 631 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 12 days - Contravention of Section 68, 69 and 70 of the Finance Act - Delay due to marriage of the son of the Chief Executive Officer - held that - person, who approaches court beyond the period of limitation, has to come up with a genuine reason for the delay. The age old theory that every day s delay has to be explained meticulously is not to be followed like an Euclid s theorem. The reasons stated by the appellant in the applications for condonation of delay are not disputed as false or frivolous. The appellant does not appear to be a limited company for the Tribunal to draw an inference that there are other officers to take care of the affairs. When a proprietary concern or a partnership firm is the appellant, it is but natural for such concerns or firms to rely upon individual leadership to take any major decision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the refusal to condone the delay of 12 days especially when the appellant has nothing to gain out of the delay is not proper. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to unexplained reasons leading to rejection of applications for condonation of delay by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant, an authorized service station for Honda brand two wheelers, received show cause notices for contravention of Sections 68, 69, and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Adjudicating Authority issued Orders in Original for the periods from 2003 to 2010. Subsequently, the appellant filed independent appeals against these orders, which were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The appellant then filed further appeals before the second respondent, facing a delay of 12 days. The Tribunal rejected the applications for condonation of delay, citing insufficient explanation for the delay.

In the applications for condonation of delay, the appellant explained the delay by stating the marriage of the Chief Executive Officer's son as the reason. However, the Tribunal found this reason inadequate, emphasizing that the appellant had other officers who could have filed the appeals. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court decisions to support its decision. The High Court acknowledged the need for genuine reasons for delay but criticized the Tribunal's strict approach. It noted that the appellant, being a proprietary concern or partnership firm, relied on individual leadership for major decisions, and there was no evidence of false or frivolous reasons for the delay. Consequently, the High Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeals, set aside the common order, allowed the applications for condonation of delay, and directed the Tribunal to hear the appeals without imposing costs.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing genuine reasons for delay in legal proceedings while cautioning against overly stringent application of rules regarding condonation of delay. The High Court's decision underscores the need for a balanced approach, considering the circumstances of the case and the nature of the appellant's business structure in determining whether to condone delays in filing appeals.