2019 (7) TMI 1003 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 420 days in filing appeal - person dealing with the files had fallen ill and both were in the wrong impression that appeals had already been filed - HELD THAT - The delay in these three appeals can be condoned on terms. Appellants will have to pay up an amount of ₹ 15,000/- in respect of each appeal. In other words, totally ₹ 45,000/- should be paid to Revenue for hearing the appeals on or before 08.04.2019. Compliance to be reported on 08.04.2019.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, payment of penalty

Delay in filing appeals:
The appellant's advocate highlighted a delay of 420 days in filing the appeals, attributing it to a mix-up at the firm and the advocate's office due to illness of the person handling the files. The advocate argued that the delay was genuine and not intentional.

Condonation of delay:
The appellate tribunal, after considering both parties' submissions, decided to condone the delay in filing the three appeals on certain terms. The tribunal ordered the appellants to pay a penalty of ?15,000 for each appeal, totaling ?45,000, to the Revenue by a specified date. The tribunal allowed the condonation of delay on the condition of payment of the penalty.

Payment of penalty:
The tribunal mandated that the appellants pay ?45,000 to the Revenue for the delay in filing the appeals, with a deadline set for compliance. The tribunal allowed the appeals to proceed on the condition that the penalty was paid as directed, emphasizing the importance of meeting the specified deadline for payment.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved the consideration of a significant delay in filing appeals, the condonation of such delay, and the imposition of a penalty as a condition for allowing the appeals to proceed. The tribunal, after evaluating the reasons for the delay presented by the appellant's advocate, decided to grant condonation but required the appellants to pay a penalty of ?45,000 to the Revenue. The decision underscored the importance of timely compliance with the payment terms set by the tribunal to move forward with the appeals.