Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT NEW DELHICondonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal has been rejected as being filed beyond the stipulated period without any genuine reason - Section 123 of the Finance ( No.2) Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the appeal has not been filed within a period of 2 months /60 days as has been stipulated statutorily in terms of section 85 (3)A of the Finance Act. Apparently and admittedly, it has been filed within a period of 90 days i.e. within the permissible time limit in terms of proviso to the provisions. Perusal of section 123 for the said scheme under Finance Act shows that since the impugned order in original was announced just two days prior the locking date of the scheme i.e. 30.06.2018, hence to avail the benefit of said scheme, appellant should fall under said clause ‘(e)’ of section 123 of the Finance Act. The appellant otherwise could not fall under any of the categories in clause (a) to (d) of section 123 - Perusal of these provisions makes it clear that to challenge the Order-in-Original of 28.6.2019, the appellant should not have filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). This particular perusal makes it clear that till the scheme was announced same could not have been opted for. Hence till 01.09.2019, the time taken has genuinely been taken by the appellant. Catena of decisions have already held that there cannot be straight jacket formula to define the word ‘sufficient cause’ or which can be applied to all cases without reference to the peculiar facts and facts and circumstances of a given case. Further, a liberal interpretation of the provisions has already been appreciated to be taken while deciding the case to condone delay for a sufficient cause. In the present matter since there is no substantial delay nor it was beyond such period as was not condonable by Commissioner (Appeals). Also department has brought nothing on record to falsify the submissions of the appellant as far as the sufficient cause shown is concerned. No deliberate delay nor any malafide intent is apparent on part of the appellant - Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to observe proviso to section 85 (3) A of the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the matter on merits after condoning the delay of 28 days - the appeal is hereby allowed by way of remand.
|