Appeal delay condoned due to Counsel's sickness

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the Counsel's sickness. The communication dated 17.07.2018 was found appealable under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The withdrawal of the facility for installment payments was set aside as the appellant had paid the outstanding dues after missing only one installment. The appeal was disposed of, allowing the appellant to pay the Service Tax demand per the earlier order. The application for directions was dismissed as the appeal was being resolved.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Appealability of the communication dated 17.07.2018 under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Merits of the case regarding the withdrawal of the facility for allowing payment of outstanding Service Tax by installments.

Analysis:
1. The appellant applied for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, citing sickness of the Counsel as the reason for the delay. After hearing both sides, the delay of 65 days was condoned by the Member (Judicial).

2. The question arose whether the communication dated 17.07.2018 is an appealable Order under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 86(1) allows appeals to the Appellate Tribunal for orders passed by a Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 73 or Section 83A. The appellant argued that the order withdrawing the facility for payment of outstanding Service Tax dues in installments has civil consequences affecting service tax recovery, making it appealable. The appellant cited relevant legal precedents to support their argument.

3. Upon examining the impugned communication dated 17.07.2018, it was found that the Commissioner had withdrawn the facility for installment payments due to the appellant's default in monthly payments. However, it was noted that the appellant had paid the outstanding dues for June and July 2018 in a subsequent month. The Circular dated 28.02.2015 clarified the conditions under which permission for installment payments could be withdrawn. As the appellant had only missed one installment and had subsequently paid the dues, the order withdrawing the facility was set aside, allowing the appellant to pay the outstanding Service Tax demand as per the earlier order dated 10.04.2018.

4. The application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was allowed, and an additional application for certain directions in the appeal was dismissed as infructuous since the appeal was being disposed of. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Member (Judicial).

This detailed analysis covers the issues of condonation of delay, appealability of the order, and the merits of the case regarding the withdrawal of the facility for installment payments of outstanding Service Tax.

---