2018 (8) TMI 1341 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay of filing appeal after 29 days of statutory period of 60 days - Held that - The changes made into rule in squeezing the limitation period to two months to file appeal, which appellant claims to have not gone to its notice appears to be sufficient cause and the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is within the condonable period of 30 days available with the Commissioner (Appeals), which could have been exercised by him generously in order to ensure substantial justice to the appellant. Therefore such delay of 29 days being within the condonable period, is condoned at this end - delay condoned - COD application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to delay in filing appeal after the statutory period and consideration of merit without providing an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal after the statutory period and the lack of opportunity to present evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) cited that the appeal was filed much after the prescribed period of 60 days, with an additional condonable period of one month, which the appellant had exceeded. The Commissioner also mentioned the appellant's failure to submit evidence against the allegations in the show-cause notice. The appellant, represented by Shri Mayur Shroff, provided evidence of the delayed delivery of the order-in-original, pleading unawareness of the reduced time limit for filing the appeal. The department, represented by Shri Dilip Shinde, acknowledged the delay in delivery due to holidays but supported the rejection of the appeal on other grounds.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by both sides, including the postal receipt and speed post envelope, to establish the date of delivery. The appellant's claim of not being aware of the reduced time limit for filing the appeal was deemed a sufficient cause for the delay of 29 days, falling within the condonable period of 30 days. As such, the Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. It was noted that the Commissioner's observation on the merit of the case without condoning the delay and admitting the appeal was irregular and not in accordance with the law. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) in Nagpur for fresh adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, condoning the delay in filing the appeal and remanding the case for a fresh adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Nagpur. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence in legal proceedings.