2022 (12) TMI 311 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of inordinate delay - sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condonation of inordinate delay or not - HELD THAT - It is not clear as to whether the appellant had placed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bidhannagar CGST CX Division dated 10th April, 2019 accepting the classification as adopted by the appellant in respect of the specified services. In the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 4 th February, 2021, there is no indication as regards the submission, which were made by the appellant. Though we do not fully approve of the conduct of the appellant in not pursuing the matter in a time bound manner, considering the fact that the present claim for refund is for the subsequent period, i.e., from October, 2008 to December, 2008, we are of the view that this aspect of the matter can be taken note of by the learned Tribunal while considering the application for condonation of delay - taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Discretion of appellate authority, Reasonable explanation for delay, Refund claim, Classification of services, Tribunal's discretion, Interest liability.

Analysis:
- The judgment addresses the issue of delay in filing the appeal, specifically focusing on an application to condone a 123-day delay in filing the appeal. The Court, after hearing arguments from both parties' counsels, accepted the reasons provided in the affidavit supporting the application and consequently condoned the delay, allowing the application for condonation of delay.

- Moving on to the main appeal, the Court deliberated on the case involving a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had filed miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay, which were dismissed by the Tribunal due to lack of sufficient cause shown by the appellant. The Court criticized the appellant's lack of diligence in pursuing the matter before the first appellate authority, resulting in a time-barred appeal. The appellate authority's dismissal was upheld, leading to the subsequent delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal, which was also viewed unfavorably due to insufficient explanation by the appellant.

- The Court acknowledged the settled legal position that diligence is crucial in legal proceedings and that delays without reasonable explanations are not favored. However, a significant development regarding a refund claim for a subsequent period from October 2008 to December 2008 influenced the Court's decision. Despite disapproval of the appellant's conduct, the Court decided to interfere with the Tribunal's order based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed, the writ petition was granted, and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, emphasizing the department's acceptance of the appellant's classification for specified services in an earlier period.

- Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of interest liability, granting liberty to the revenue to raise this issue before the Tribunal for consideration. Finally, the Court allowed other related appeals and applications based on the observations made in the judgment, with no order as to costs and instructions for expeditious furnishing of certified copies of the order to the parties.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the Court's considerations on various legal issues, including delay in filing appeals, discretion of appellate authorities, reasonable explanations for delays, refund claims, classification of services, and interest liability, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and the Court's decision-making process.