2019 (1) TMI 773

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the delay could not have been attributed to the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner points out to the notice to show cause dated 28.1.2014, at Annexure-A, wherein notice was issued to the petitioner while referring to the returns for the period January 2013 to December 2013, while in the adjudicating order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Belagavi, at Annexure-E, the period referred to is March 2012 to December 2012. The petitioner brought this to the notice of the respondent Assistant Commissioner and sought clarification in this reg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, Rule 5, on the basis of which the original authority has passed the order for levying of tax is held to be ultra vires to Sec.67 of the Act. Further, the matter may fall in the realm of correct interpretation of Sec.67 as to whether the expenses reimbursed by the consumer to the service provider, can be included for the purpose of computation of the service tax or not. We do not propose to express any further view on the said aspects in view of the order which we may pass hereinafter, but suffice it to observe that in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court, there was a strong case on merits on the part of the petitioner to be considered by taxing authority. Unfortunately the decision of the Delhi High Court though was specifically .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the par ties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X