Tribunal allows appeal after delay, citing lack of representation as cause.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dismissing the appeal due to a 21-day delay in filing, remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) and directing condonation of the delay. The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the delay as the appellant lacked an appropriate person to handle the matter at the time. Citing the Apex Court's principles on condonation of delay, the Tribunal held the delay was justified and allowed the appeal without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant challenged the impugned order dismissing their appeal due to a delay of 21 days in filing it. The lower appellate authority rejected condonation of delay, citing failure on the part of the appellant to present their defense before the original authority. The matter involved a demand of duty exceeding Rs. 30 lakhs from the appellant, a cooperative society. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause for condonation of the delay as the appellant demonstrated the absence of an appropriate person to handle the matter at the relevant time. The Tribunal concluded that the lower appellate authority did not judiciously exercise discretion in refusing to condone the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals), and directed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

Condonation of delay:
The Tribunal considered the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding condonation of delay and found that the appellant had shown sufficient cause for the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal. The absence of the appropriate person on behalf of the appellant to deal with the matter was evident from the records, justifying the delay. The Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be sustained, and it was a fit case for allowing the appeal and condoning the delay. The Tribunal clarified that it did not express any opinion on the merits of the case while setting aside the impugned order and directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to proceed with the appeal in accordance with the law.

---