9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y had challenged the order dated 27.8.2013, to which, the assessee explained that they pursued the matter under the VCES as they were advised to do so. Not convinced with the explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 25.10.2017. The facts clearly show that the reason for the delay has been explained, the explanation offered is reasonable and convincing - thus, the appellant had shown sufficient cause in not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal should be condoned - decided in favor of assessee. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2813 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 4-12-2018 - Mr.Justice T.S. Sivagnanam And Mr.Justice N. Sathish Kumar For the Appellant : Mr.K.Jay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had shown sufficient cause for not having preferred any appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. 5. The facts are not in dispute and it is admitted that there is a delay of 1553 days in filing the appeal. What is required to be seen is as to whether the appellant was able to explain the delay and as to whether the explanation would amount to showing sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In our considered view, the facts clearly show that the reason for the delay has been explained and in our opinion, the explanation offered is reasonable and convincing. We hold that the appellant had shown sufficient cause in not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation. 6. We support such a conclusion wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd ₹ 19 lakhs. Even prior to filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee paid ₹ 15 lakhs, being a part of service tax demanded. After the First Appellate Authority reduced the demand to ₹ 19 lakhs, it is stated that the remaining amount was also paid and that the entire service tax liability stood settled. 9. It appears that the assessee was advised to file an application under the Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES), so that they could get immunity from payment of interest and penalty. It also appears that the assessee was not correctly advised that they would not be in a position to contest the merits of the matter before the Authority under the VCES. Therefore, the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the impugned order on the ground that the delay had not been properly explained. 12. As already observed earlier, the explanation offered by the assessee is reasonable and convincing. Even assuming that the assessee was pursuing a wrong remedy, still the conduct of the assessee appears to be bona fide. Therefore, if the assessee was pursuing a relief in a bona fide manner, though ultimately it did not yield fruitful results to their satisfaction, the Court needs to test the conduct of the assessee in such circumstances. Thus, we are of the considered view that though the delay appears to be inordinate, it has been properly explained and the assessee has been prosecuting the matter bona fide before a different forum and they should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
