M/S. Didar Motors vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai

ST/COD/42407, 42409, 42411/2013 & ST/S/42408, 42410, 42412/2013 and ST/42454, 42455, 42456/2013

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.214 to 216/2013 (M-ST) dated 20.8.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

M/s. Didar Motors Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Respondent

Appearance

Shri V. Shantha Ram, Advocate for the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of Hearing: 07.01.2015 Date of Decision: 07.01.2015

Final Order No. 40010-40012 / 2015

Per D.N. Panda

When this batch of appeals came up on 23.6.2014 against the appellate order dated 20.8.2013, there was a prayer by the appellant to adjourn the matter. That was accordingly adjourned to 15.9.2014. That was noted by the representative of appellant. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 15.10.2014. There is repetition of adjournment prayer on that date. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to call on 15.12.2014. Again on 15.12.2014, there was a prayer for adjournment. That was adjourned accordingly to call on 7.1.2015.

2. When the matter came up today, again the appellant was prayed to adjourn the matters. It is the submission of learned counsel today that the person who was to file affidavit is not available. We enquired from the record as to the reason why the appeal before the Tribunal was delayed. The application shows that because of CEO Shri K.B. Singhs sons marriage the appeal could not be filed. We are unable to appreciate the reason how appellant has taken such stand when the orgasnisation had other officers to take steps for remedy against the impugned order. It appears that application for condonation of delay is made very casually before Tribunal to cross the limitation for no appealing reason stated therein. Law of limitation is not designed in a casual manner. Any interpretation of law relating to limitation in a casual manner is sanctioning abuse of the process of law and that shall demolish right of the other side.

3. We are conscious that if delay is not condoned the appellant shall be prejudiced and an appeal with cause may be thrown at the threshold. But that does not mean Revenue shall be deprived of recovery of its dues which was demanded by adjudication order dated 15.3.2010. The said order was subject matter of appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) considering the grievance of the appellant granted partial relief. But appellant being unsuccessful has sought remedy before the Tribunal. The appellant is still casual to consciously pursue the remedy ad law relating to limitation before the Tribunal is given go bye by the appellant.

4. We are guided by Apex Court decision in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy  2008 (228) ELT 162 (SC) and Collector of Land Acquisition Anantnag & Anr. Vs. MST. Katji and Ors.  1987 (28) ELT 185 (SC) as to how the courts should approach to deal with application for condonation of delay. But present case is not a case which justifies to keep the appeal pending with an application for condonation of appeal with no good reason. Therefore, all the MA (CODs), stay applications and appeals are dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) (D.N. Panda) Technical Member Judicial Member

Rex

3