Condonation application and appeal dismissed due to 455-day delay; financial constraints explanation deemed insufficient.

A Dasnivas Fernando Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Bangalore-iii

A Dasnivas Fernando Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax Bangalore-iii - TMI Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to financial difficulties.

In this case, the applicant filed an application seeking condonation of 455 days in filing the appeal, citing financial difficulties as the reason for the delay. The applicant explained that due to a case against a related company and financial constraints, they were unable to file the appeal in time. The applicant mentioned that the company in question had become defunct, and they lacked the financial means to make the mandatory predeposit for the appeal. The applicant borrowed money to make the predeposit, but the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the delay was due to financial constraints and not deliberate.

On the other hand, the learned AR opposed the condonation application, highlighting the significant delay of 455 days and questioning the lack of concrete evidence regarding the financial difficulties faced by the applicant. The AR relied on various legal precedents to support the argument against condonation of delay. The tribunal considered the submissions from both parties and noted that the sole reason provided for the delay was financial difficulties, without substantial proof. The tribunal found the delay of 455 days to be inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the condonation application and, as a result, also dismissed the appeal.

The judgment underscores the importance of providing concrete evidence to support claims of financial difficulties causing delays in legal proceedings. It also highlights the significance of timely filing appeals and the challenges in condoning substantial delays without adequate justification. The decision serves as a reminder of the need for parties to adhere to procedural timelines and provide verifiable reasons for any delays encountered in legal matters.