2013 Supreme(Raj) 1805
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Amitava Roy, Arun Bhansali, JJ.
Adarsh Cooperative Bank Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 17-19 of 2013.
Decided On : 17-09-2013
For the Appellant:Sanjeev Johari and Lalit K. Purohit, Advocates.
A party seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must offer a sufficient cause for the delay.
Headnote:
SERVICE TAX - Delay in filing appeals - Condonation - Appellant, a Cooperative Bank, filed belated appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal - Tribunal declined to condone the delay - Held, the appellant failed to offer any cause far less sufficient cause to condone the delay - Appeals dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a Cooperative Bank, filed belated appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Tribunal - Tribunal declined to condone the delay - Appellant argued that the Chartered Accountant entrusted with the responsibility of preferring the appeals was not its agent and that sufficient cause was proffered to explain the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The Tribunal did not err in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay on the ground that the appellant was liable for the negligent professional conduct of the Chartered Accountant - The appellant failed to offer any cause far less sufficient cause to condone the delay - The delay was a consequence of the appellant's deliberate inaction, negligence, and laches.
Issues: Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeals - Whether the appellant offered any cause far less sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant failed to offer any cause far less sufficient cause to condone the delay - The delay was a consequence of the appellant's deliberate inaction, negligence, and laches.
Final Decision: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. - These appeals arise out of a common order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the learned Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Service Tax COD Applications No.4281, 4283 and 4285 of 2012 with stay applications no.4280, 4282 and 4284 of 2012 in appeals no.3364-3366 of 2012. Thereby the learned Tribunal declined to condone the delay in preferring the accompanying appeals against the order dated 21.3.2011 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-II in appeal no.144- 146 (CB) ST/JPR-II/2011.
2. We have heard Mr.Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the appellant.
3. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to issue any formal notice to the respondents.
4. The appellant contending that it is a Cooperative Bank registered under the provisions of Section 22 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act") read with Rule 10 of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Rules, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and thus, is beyond the purview of Section 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12) of the Finance Act, 1994, had preferred belated appeals against the order dated 21.3.2011 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Jaipur-II before the learned Tribunal. The delay was of one year and four months. Prior thereto, it had unsuccessfully appealed against the order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Udaipur levying service tax, education cess and SHE cess together with interest and penalty as specified therein before the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Central Excise (Appeals), Jaipur-II.
5. In explaining the delay in filing the appeals before the learned Tribunal, the appellant stated that it had entrusted its Chartered Accountant Shri K.C.Mundra to do so, but "due to some exigencies coupled with developed differences", the appeals were not filed by him in time and eventually, its Management had to take decision for taking away the files from him and for engaging another counsel locally at Delhi.
6. The learned Tribunal rejected the applications on the ground that it did not advert to any insuperable personal circumstances of the Chartered Accountant contributing to the unavoidable delay in preferring the appeals in time. Apart from observing that the Chartered Accountant was the agent of the appellant and accordingly, it was liable for his negligent professional conduct as its agent, the learned Tribunal recorded further that no reason justifying the delay had been set out and therefore, declined to exercise its discretion to condone the same. The appeals as a consequence also stand dismissed.
7. Mr.Johari has insistently argued that the Chartered Accountant entrusted by the appellant with the responsibility of preferring the appeals before the learned Tribunal was not its agent at any point of time as construed by it (Tribunal) and therefore, it erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay on this count by holding the appellant liable for the negligent professional conduct of the said Chartered Accountant. The learned counsel further argued that sufficient cause having been proferred to explain the delay, the learned Tribunal ought not to have penalised the appellant for no fault on its part.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents available on record, we are unable to sustain the pleas put-forward.Noticeably, whereas in the memorandum of appeal, it has been averred that "due to some exigencies coupled with developed differences", the appeals were not filed by its Chartered Accountant in time and that "eventually the appellant's management had to take a decision for taking away the files from him and for engaging other counsel locally at Delhi", in the application fo
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
