2016 (5) TMI 567 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal - Demand of Service tax alongwith interest and penalty - Authorized Service Station and Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - the explanation furnished by it cannot be held to be plausible. It cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal had decided the appeal on 6.12.2013. However, the appeal before this Court was required to be filed on or before 5.3.2014, i.e. within the stipulated period of limitation of three months. But the appellant filed the appeal before this Court on 28.3.2016, after a long and inordinate delay of 638 days. According to the version of the appellant, it was informed by the counsel that the appeal of the revenue was dismissed in 2015 but still the appellant never bothered to obtain certified copy of the order. Nothing had been produced to substantiate the said plea either in the form of an affidavit of the counsel or by producing other material on record. Further, this version does not appear to be natural and cannot be said to be reasonable and logical as a litigant would always like to keep his record complete in case the lis had been decided either in his favour or against him by obtaining certified copy of the order and other relevant papers from its counsel which had not been done here. The story put forth by the appellant is a camouflage to cover the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the present appeal. Since no sufficient cause has been shown in the present case, no ground for condonation of delay is made out. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay and the same is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by time. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994.
2. Whether sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay.
3. Legal principles governing condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
4. Application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1994 against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed after a significant delay of 638 days, necessitating an application for condonation of delay.

Issue 2: Sufficient Cause for Condonation
The primary question was whether there existed sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that the delay was unintentional and beyond their control due to the actions of their counsel. However, the court found the explanation provided by the appellant to be implausible and not supported by evidence.

Issue 3: Legal Principles on Condonation of Delay
The court examined the legal position regarding condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized that the law of limitation is based on public policy to ensure timely redressal of legal grievances. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 allows for a flexible approach by the courts to serve the ends of justice.

Issue 4: Application of Supreme Court Judgments
Referring to judgments by the Supreme Court, the court highlighted that while no standard test exists for determining sufficient cause, each case must be evaluated on its individual merits. The court should adopt a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter stance for prolonged delays. The burden lies on the appellant to demonstrate diligence and circumstances beyond their control leading to the delay.

In the judgment, the court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period. The court found that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing the importance of timely legal remedies and the need for parties to act diligently in pursuing their appeals.