2014 (12) TMI 711 - AT - Service Tax

Dismissal of Appeal and Stay Petition for Failure to Establish Bonafide Reasons

ABT. Kumar & Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay, Stay Petition, and Appeal due to the Appellant's ... Condonation of delay - Delay of 107 days - reason for the delay is that the staff of the Chartered Accountant, suddenly met with an accident, resulting into severe injury - Held that:- Details of the staff has not been disclosed. The ld. Consultant for the Applicant, even today, could not be spelt out the name of the said staff, who met an accident. In these circumstances, we find deficiency in the bonafideness of the Applicant about the facts narrated in the Miscellaneous Application stating reasons for delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Living Media India Ltd. Vs. Office of the Chief Post Master General : [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], has specifically laid down that while considering the application of condonation for delay, bonafideness of the applicant needs to be examined. In the present case, we are of the view that the Applicant could not show their bonafideness. Accordingly, both the Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed - Condonation denied. Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, bonafideness of reasons for delayIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA, the issue at hand was the condonation of a delay of 107 days in filing an appeal. The Appellant sought condonation, citing an accident involving a staff member of their Chartered Accountant as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to provide a Medical Certificate regarding the injury of the staff member. However, the Appellant later stated that the staff member had left the job, making it impossible to obtain the Medical Certificate.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the details of the staff involved in the accident were not disclosed, raising doubts about the bonafideness of the reasons for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of bonafideness in such cases, citing a precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As the Appellant failed to demonstrate their bonafideness, both the Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay were dismissed. Consequently, the Stay Petition and Appeal were also dismissed by the Tribunal.This judgment underscores the significance of establishing bonafideness when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. Failure to provide sufficient details or evidence to support the reasons for delay can result in the dismissal of the application for condonation, leading to the dismissal of subsequent petitions and appeals.