Skip to content


Singh and Co. Vs. C.C.C.E. and S.Tax, Allahabad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided On
Case NumberStay Application No.55936 of 2013 & Service Tax Appeal No.55691 of 2013 Arising Out of the order in Appeal No.102/ST/ALLD of 2012 dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Allahabad.
Judge
AppellantSingh and Co.
RespondentC.C.C.E. and S.Tax, Allahabad
Excerpt:
finance act, 1994 - section 78; .....could not contact its counsel for seeking advice, and when he became well he contacted counsel and filed the appeal. 3. the appellate authority rejected the appeal, declining to exercise discretion to condone the delay, since the appeal was preferred beyond the normal period of limitation but within the extended period of limitation. 4. for rejecting the appeal, the appellate commissioner recorded that the appellant, according to the medical certificate produced was seen to be under treatment from 2.6.2011 to 8.8.2011, prior to the dispatch of the primary adjudication order and in the circumstances, no satisfactory cause was established. 5. before this tribunal along with the appeal, a copy of a medical certificate dated 25.3.2012 is filed which certifies that the appellant suffered from.....
Judgment:

G. Raghuram, J.

1. Aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 16.9.2011 passed by the ld. Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad confirming service tax of Rs.10,42,626/-; late fee of Rs.2000/-; penalty of Rs.5000/- under Section 77; and penalty of an amount equivalent to service tax, under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant has preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Allahabad on 9.4.2012.

2. The appellant received the primary adjudication order on 10.10.2011. An appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay, pleading that the appellant was incapacitated from filing the appeal due to urgent work which required going out of station. Thereafter, he fell ill and could not contact its Counsel for seeking advice, and when he became well he contacted Counsel and filed the appeal.

3. The Appellate authority rejected the appeal, declining to exercise discretion to condone the delay, since the appeal was preferred beyond the normal period of limitation but within the extended period of limitation.

4. For rejecting the appeal, the Appellate Commissioner recorded that the appellant, according to the medical certificate produced was seen to be under treatment from 2.6.2011 to 8.8.2011, prior to the dispatch of the primary adjudication order and in the circumstances, no satisfactory cause was established.

5. Before this Tribunal along with the appeal, a copy of a medical certificate dated 25.3.2012 is filed which certifies that the appellant suffered from Post Traumatic Peri- arthritis on the shoulder and was advised bed rest from 4.1.12 to 25.3.12, with medical fitness from 26.3.2012.

6. We find no perversity in the order of the Appellate Commissioner rejecting the appeal, consequent on rejection of the application for condonation of delay, since no wholly satisfactory cause was furnished before the Appellate Commissioner for condoning the delay. However, since a copy of medical certificate certifying that the appellant was medically incapacited during the period of the delay is placed on record before us, we are inclined to condone the delay on terms as to costs.

7. Accordingly, on condition that appellant remits Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) to the credit of Revenue and furnishes proof of such remittance before the Appellate Commissioner, within two weeks from today, the delay in preferring an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Allahabad is condoned. The impugned order dated 2.11.2012 rejecting the appeal consequent on rejection of the COD application is set aside, subject to fulfillment of this condition. On receipt of proof of remittance of the costs as ordered, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) shall take up the appeal and dispose of the same on merits. In default of deposit of costs as directed herein the this appeal shall stand rejected. We dispose of this appeal as above after waiving pre-deposit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //