Didar Motors vs Commissioner of Service Tax

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—These appeals are filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging a common order passed by the second respondent refusing to condone the delay of 12 days in filing the appeals on the ground that each day''s delay has not been explained. Heard Mr. Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the limited nature of the dispute involved in the appeals, we directed Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel to take notice for the first respondent.

The appellant is an authorized service station for sales and service of Honda brand two wheelers. The appellant was issued with three show cause notices bearing Nos. 47/2009, dated 17-3-2009, 15/2010, dated 30-3-2010 and 04/2011, dated 9-2-2011, on the ground that the appellant had contravened Sections 68 , 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rules 4, 6(1) and 7 of the Service Tax Rules, inasmuch as they did not discharge the service tax liability within the prescribed time and did not register with the Service Tax Department during the relevant point of time and also did not file S.T.3 returns during the relevant time.

The appellant submitted replies to the show cause notices. However, the adjudicating authority passed Orders-in-Original bearing Nos. 32/2010, dated 15-3-2010, 81/2010, dated 26-10-2010 and 48/2011, dated 18-7-2011. The three show cause notices and the three Orders-in-Original related respectively to the periods from 1-10-2003 to 31-3-2008, 1-4-2008 to 30-9-2009 and 1-10-2009 to 30-9-2010.

As against the Orders-in-Original, the appellant filed independent appeals. These appeals bearing Nos. 190/2010, 370/2010 and 444/2011 were dismissed by the Appellate Authority by a common order dated 20-8-2013. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority, the appellant filed further appeals before the second respondent. However, there was a delay of about 12 days in filing the appeals and hence, the appellant filed applications for condonation of the delay of 12 days. These applications were rejected by the Tribunal by a common order dated 7-1-2015 on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. Hence these appeals.

In the applications for condonation of delay, the appellant has indicated that the marriage of the son of the Chief Executive Officer of the appellant was scheduled to be held during October, 2013. The wedding was to be held at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh and the reception was scheduled to be held at Chennai. Therefore, a delay of 12 days had occasioned. But, the Tribunal held that the aforesaid reason could not be accepted, especially when the organisation had other officers to take steps to file the appeals. The Tribunal remarked that the applications for condonation of delay were made very casually. In support of its conclusion, the Tribunal drew inspiration from the decisions of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another Vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, .

It is true that the person, who approaches Court beyond the period of limitation, has to come up with a genuine reason for the delay. The age old theory that every day''s delay has to be explained meticulously is not to be followed like an Euclid''s theorem. The reasons stated by the appellant in the applications for condonation of delay are not disputed as false or frivolous. The appellant does not appear to be a limited company for the Tribunal to draw an inference that there are other officers to take care of the affairs. When a proprietary concern or a partnership firm is the appellant, it is but natural for such concerns or firms to rely upon individual leadership to take any major decision. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the refusal to condone the delay of 12 days especially when the appellant has nothing to gain out of the delay is not proper. In view of the above, the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the impugned common order is set aside. The applications for condonation of delay are allowed and the Tribunal is directed to take up the appeals for hearing. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.