High Court grants appeal for delay in filing against Customs Tribunal, citing diligence and proactive approach.

The High Court allowed the appeal for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's Final Order. Despite the Tribunal's rejection, the Court found the appellant diligently pursued the matter, attributing the delay to shifting the branch office and misplaced records. Emphasizing the appellant's proactive approach and lack of negligence, the Court distinguished the case from precedent, citing Circular No.117/11/2009-ST. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision, restoring the appeal without imposing costs.

---

---

Issues:
Condonation of delay application for filing appeal.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, questioning the rejection of the condonation of delay application for filing the appeal. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services as an Air Travel Agent, faced a show cause notice for not discharging service tax liability on various services besides air travel. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty, leading to an unsuccessful appeal before the Commissioner. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal, seeking condonation of a 69-day delay in filing the appeal, which was rejected along with the appeal and stay application. The High Court intervened, considering the reason for the delay due to shifting the branch office and misplaced records. Despite the Tribunal's decision, the High Court found the appellant diligently pursued the matter and interfered to condone the delay, emphasizing the marginal delay and the appellant's proactive approach.

The High Court referenced Circular No.117/11/2009-ST but refrained from delving into the case's merits, focusing solely on allowing the appeal based on condonation of delay. The Court distinguished the present case from a previous Andhra Pradesh High Court decision, emphasizing that the appellant's explanation for the delay, supported by the Branch Manager's affidavit regarding office shifting and misplaced records, constituted a sufficient cause for condonation. Unlike the case cited by the Tribunal, the appellant's conduct did not indicate negligence, justifying the acceptance of the plea for condonation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal without imposing any costs.

---