2017 (2) TMI 492 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal allows appeal despite delay, emphasizes 'sufficient cause' for litigants. Cost imposed for non-compliance.

The tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the 28-day delay in filing based on the elastic nature of 'sufficient cause' and the importance of granting ... Condonation of delay - delay of 28 days on the ground that the papers were misplaced in the appellant's office and also that the concerned official dealing with the appeal was on leave and therefore the appellant could not coordinate the matter with the appellant's advocate - Held that: - Though no hard and fast rule is laid, the Apex Court had advocated a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and stricter approach where the delay is inordinate. The delay in the present case is only 28 days. The delay in filing the appeal can be condoned by putting the appellant on terms - the appellant shall pay cost of ₹ 5,000/- to respondent within one month - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and application for condonation of delay.Analysis:The appeal was filed with a delay of 28 days, and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the application to condone the delay, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the unavailability of the official handling the files and the inability to coordinate with the advocate. On the other hand, the department contended that misplacing papers and the absence of the official were not sufficient reasons for the delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on these grounds.Upon reviewing the case, the tribunal noted that the delay was only 28 days, within the Commissioner's power to condone a delay of up to 30 days. Citing various judgments, the tribunal emphasized the need to grant litigants the opportunity to present their case on merits rather than focus on technicalities. The tribunal highlighted the elastic nature of the term 'sufficient cause' in statutes like the Limitation Act, allowing courts to apply the law in a manner that serves justice. While no strict rule was set, a liberal approach was favored for short delays and a stricter stance for longer delays.Consequently, the tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a condition. The appellant was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent within one month and report compliance to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a copy of the tribunal's order. Failure to meet this condition would lead to the automatic dismissal of the appeal. However, if the condition was fulfilled, the Commissioner (Appeals) would reconsider the appeal on its merits. The tribunal allowed the appeal under these terms, emphasizing the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the opportunity for substantive justice.