Tribunal dismisses cross-objection due to delay, sets final hearing date.

The Tribunal rejected the Applicant's application to condone a 468-day delay in filing a cross-objection, citing inadequate explanation for the delay despite financial difficulties. Consequently, the cross-objection was dismissed, and the appeal was set for a final hearing on 12 September 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the cross-appeal by the Applicant.
2. Application for condoning the delay of 468 days in filing the cross-objection.
3. Adequacy of the explanation provided for the delay.
4. Consideration of the Applicant's financial difficulties as a reason for the delay.
5. Legal precedents cited by both parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Cross-Appeal by the Applicant:
The Applicant, M/s C. P. Systems Pvt. Limited, filed a cross-appeal on 20 July 2018, with a significant delay of 468 days. The appeal was initially filed by the Department on 31 January 2014, challenging the order dated 27 September 2013, by the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, which partially granted relief to the Applicant. The Tribunal's Registry communicated this appeal to the Applicant on 19 March 2014 and again on 8 February 2017, informing them of the final hearing scheduled for 27 February 2017.

2. Application for Condoning the Delay of 468 Days in Filing the Cross-Objection:
The Applicant's application for condoning the delay highlighted several reasons for the delay, including financial distress since 2013, loss of key personnel, and disorganized records. The Applicant claimed that these circumstances prevented them from filing the cross-objection within the stipulated period of 45 days as mandated by Section 86(4) of the Finance Act, 1994.

3. Adequacy of the Explanation Provided for the Delay:
The Tribunal scrutinized the Applicant's explanation for the delay. The Applicant argued that the speed post dated 19 March 2014 was not received, and the delay should be calculated from the receipt of the second notice on 14 February 2017. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no specific denial of receipt of the first notice in the application. The Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the delay from April 2014 to 27 February 2017, and even the delay post the second notice was not sufficiently justified.

4. Consideration of the Applicant's Financial Difficulties as a Reason for the Delay:
The Applicant cited severe financial difficulties, including being declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by their bank and ongoing negotiations for a one-time settlement. Despite these claims, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant was represented by multiple counsels across various hearings, indicating that the matter was being pursued, albeit ineffectively.

5. Legal Precedents Cited by Both Parties:
The Applicant's counsel referenced the Jharkhand High Court's decision in *Voltas Ltd. vs. Deputy Commr., C. Ex. Jamshedpur* and the Supreme Court's decision in *V. N. Bharat vs. Delhi Development Authority* to support their plea for a liberal approach in condoning the delay. The Tribunal, however, differentiated these cases from the present one, stating that the Applicant failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that under Section 86(5) of the Act, the delay could only be condoned if the Applicant satisfactorily demonstrated a sufficient cause, which was not done in this case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 468 days in filing the cross-objection. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected, and as a result, the cross-objection was also dismissed. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing on 12 September 2019.

---