2019 (6) TMI 1281 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 214 days occurred in filing the above appeal - appellant that the delay was occurred only because of some communication gap between the appellant and the consultant, who was handling the case earlier - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Tribunal had failed in considering the question with a liberal approach. The Tribunal had failed in applying the settled legal principle of law in the matter of granting condonation of delay. The Tribunal had also failed in considering the question of condoning the delay by compensating the respondent in terms of cost. Taking note of the larger interest involved and on the basis of the settled legal principle we are of the considered opinion that the delay caused ought to have been condoned by compensating the respondent in terms of cost - COD application allowed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

The appellant challenged an order fixing service tax liability and penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax (Appeals) limited the demand period and set aside the penalty. The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 214 days, attributing it to a communication gap with the consultant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to unsatisfactory reasons for the delay. The appellant argued for a lenient view, emphasizing the larger interest and settled legal principles. The Tribunal's failure to consider condonation even with costs was contested by the appellant. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in not applying a liberal approach and settled legal principles. It held that the delay should have been condoned by compensating the respondent. Consequently, the question of law was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.

Outcome:

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order. The appellant's application for condonation of delay was granted, subject to payment of ?15,000 as costs to the respondent. The Tribunal was directed to restore the appeal, hear the parties, and dispose of the matter on merits. The judgment was clarified to apply only to the specific case and not as a precedent for others.

This judgment highlights the importance of considering all circumstances in condoning delays, emphasizing a liberal approach and compensating the affected party.