Commissioner of Service Tax vs Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. and Another

K. Raviraja Pandian, J.—This appeal is filed by the State against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai refusing to condone the delay of 255 days in filing an appeal before it against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal).

Before the Tribunal it was stated by the appellant that there was a delay in obtaining the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai and in a similar matter an appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court and that was pending. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the appellant holding that sufficient cause has not been shown by the appellant for condonation of the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and mere pendency of any similar case before any court cannot be a valid reason for condonation of delay. The Tribunal also observed that even after receipt of the advice of the Chief Commissioner, there was a delay of one month.

The learned Assistant Solicitor General submitted that as against the order passed by this court dated October 26, 2007 in the case of CCE, Chennai v. Carborundum Universal Limited in CMA. Nos. 2675 to 2678 of 2007 an appeal has been filed. He also submits that in the matter of condonation of delay, as against the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of 2005 (122) ECR 1 74 , an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, which was admitted.

Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and perused the materials available on record.

Each case depends on its own facts and reasons stated therein. "Reasonable cause" stated should be to the satisfaction of the court. This court is also not oblivious of the fact that the long delay cannot be a criteria. Even the long delay can be condoned if reasonable cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court. Like that, shorter delay without sufficient cause would disentitle the appellant to have the delay condoned.

So far as the case on hand is concerned, we are of the view that the reasons stated in ground (b) of the memorandum of grounds of appeal cannot be treated as sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the court to grant the indulgence in favour of the appellant. It was claimed by the appellant before the CESTAT that the appeal was filed on the advice of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai whose letter was received on April 18, 2006, and that was the reason for filing the appeal with enormous delay of 255 days. After taking note of the relevant provision of the Finance Act, 1994, the Tribunal was of the view that the decision to file an appeal against the Appellate Commissioner''s order has to be taken independently by the Commissioner of Service Tax. The Chief Commissioner of Service Tax has no role to play in filing an appeal. In the circumstances, the Tribunal expressed that it was at a loss to understand as to why the appellant waited for the Chief Commissioner''s advice.

It was also conceded before the Tribunal that the appellant was not aware of the fact that a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court and High Court of Mumbai. The Tribunal, however, concluded that mere pendency of a similar case cannot be regarded as a valid reason for condonation of delay, because the statute prescribed that the appellant should adduce reasonable cause to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

For the reasons stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is consequently dismissed.