Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Digital Ad Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 11 April, 2016

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

Appeal No. ST/41890/2015

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.125/2015 (STA-II) dated 27.5.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals  II), Chennai)

M/s. Digital AD Media Worldwide Pvt. Ltd.		Appellant

      
      Vs.


Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai			Respondent

Appearance Shri J. Shankar Raman, Advocate and Shri S. Sivaramakrishnan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P. Anbuchelvan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member Date of Hearing / Decision: 11.04.2016 Final Order No. 40596 / 2016 Perusal of para 7 of the appellate order shows that learned Commissioner (Appeals) was conscious about the law relating to limitation in respect of admission of appeal before it. According to the law in force, the limitation was 90 days at the first instance and with the discretionary jurisdiction further 90 days was permitted to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the cases of delay. But, the said order reflects that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has disregarded the reasoning given by the appellant that it was dark in absence of the knowledge of the impugned order due to negligence of an employee. There appears no malafide in absence of any enquiry conducted by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the reason does not call for any strict view to be taken to deprive the appellant from the process of justice. It may be appreciated that if the appeal is thrown at the threshold stage on limitation, litigant may suffer. Where discretionary jurisdiction is vested on the quasi-judicial authority to consider condonation of delay, they may do so at the interest of justice without such power being exercised whimsically or casually.

2. Having appreciated possible difficulty of the appellant, learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall appropriately deal with the reason and condone the delay as well as hear the appellant thoroughly on merit to pass appropriate order.

3. Appellant is directed to make an application to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) within a month of receipt of copy of this order for fixing the date of hearing. On the date so fixed, without seeking any adjournment, the appellant shall cooperate with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for passing appropriate order.

4. In the result, appeal is disposed in the manner indicated above.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (D.N. Panda) Judicial Member Rex 2