2017 (4) TMI 649 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT condones appeal delay, imposes Rs. 5,000 cost for lapse.

Balaji Distributors Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI condoned a delay in filing an appeal, originally delayed by 5 days but extended due to communication issues among ... Condonation of delay - there was a delay of 5 days in presenting the appeal and inasmuch as the appeal was not annexed with the proper documents - maintainability of appeal - Held that: - there was utter lapse on the part of the appellant to remove the defects and to file the appeal again, but keeping in view that the appellant is a partnership firm and appreciating their stand that the said fact was not brought to their notice by the advocates and appreciating that the appellant was initially filed with the delay of 5 days only and in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal - as there has been admitted lapse on the part of the assessee, it is fit to impose a cost of ₹ 5,000/- - COD application allowed. Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, imposition of costIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the main issue revolves around a delay of approximately 37 months in presenting an appeal, leading to the question of whether this delay should be condoned. The impugned order was passed on a specific date, and the appellant received it a few days later. The appellant then engaged a legal consultant to prepare the appeal, which was subsequently filed with the Registry after a delay of 5 days. However, the appeal was not annexed with the proper documents, resulting in a defect memo being issued by the Registry pointing out the deficiencies. Despite several reminders and communications between different advocates involved in the process, the appeal was refiled with a condonation of delay application after a significant period.The Tribunal noted that the appeal was originally filed with only a 5-day delay, and it was after the defects were highlighted that the extended delay occurred due to communication issues among the advocates handling the matter. While acknowledging the appellant's failure to rectify the defects promptly, the Tribunal considered the appellant's status as a partnership firm and the lack of awareness regarding the defects as mitigating factors. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. However, due to the admitted lapse on the part of the appellant, a cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed, which the appellant was directed to deposit with the Registry within a specified timeframe. The Tribunal's decision aimed to balance the interests of justice while holding the appellant accountable for the lapses in the filing process.Overall, the judgment highlights the importance of timely compliance with procedural requirements in legal matters, while also considering the circumstances and responsibilities of the parties involved. The Tribunal's decision to condone the delay but impose a cost reflects a balanced approach to address the lapses in the appeal filing process.