TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Allows Appeal Despite Delay for Illness - Importance of Considering Reasons for Filing Delay</h1> <h3>SOLARIS CHEMTECH INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, MANGALORE</h3> The Tribunal condoned the 2 to 3-day delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the dealing officer's ill health. The appeal was ... Condonation of delay - Absence of dealing officer - Held that:- Delay attributable to the absence of dealing officer of the appellant's company due to his ill health, which is evident from the leave application available in the records; and that immediately on resuming to his duties, necessary steps were taken to file the appeal before the first appellate authority. The marginal delay in filing the appeal should not be held against the substantive right of the appellant to file the appeal and redress his grievance in the appellate forum. Since the present appeal has been filed within the time limit of further 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have disposed the appeal on merits, which he is empowered under the statute to do so - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) due to absence of dealing officer because of ill health.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal along with a stay application against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected due to delay in filing within the stipulated sixty days provided in the Central Excise statute. The appellant received the order on 23.03.2013 and sent the appeal papers on the last date of limitation, i.e., 22.05.2013, through Speed Post, which was likely delivered after 2 to 3 days, causing the delay. The reason for the delay was explained as the absence of the dealing officer due to ill health. The Tribunal observed that the delay was due to the officer's ill health, as evidenced by the leave application, and noted that necessary steps were taken promptly upon his return to file the appeal. The Tribunal held that the marginal delay should not prejudice the appellant's substantive right to appeal and have his grievance addressed. Since the appeal was filed within an additional 30 days, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have condoned the delay and proceeded to decide the appeal on its merits, as empowered by the statute.The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, condoned the delay of 2 to 3 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal by way of remand. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merit after providing the appellant with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court, granting relief to the appellant and emphasizing the importance of considering the reasons for delay in filing appeals to ensure substantive rights are not unjustly affected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
