Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 9 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Application(s) Involved: ST/COD/20597/2017 in ST/21597/2017-DB Appeal(s) Involved: ST/21597/2017-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MYS-EXCUS-000-DIVV-APP-HAB-040-2013-14 dated 13/11/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Tax, MYSORE.] M/s. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Mandya Division Bandigowda Layout MANDYA - 571401 KARNATAKA Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Mysore S1-S2, VINAYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSORE - 570011 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. PRADYUMNA G.H. ADVOCATE NO.371, 8TH MAIN SADASHIV NAGAR Bangalore - 560080 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. Madhup Saran, AR For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 09/02/2018 Date of Decision: 09/02/2018 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20176 / 2018 Per : V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal has been filed along with COD application for condonation of delay against the Order-in-Appeal No.40/2013-14 dated 13.11.2013. The application for condonation of delay has been made for condoning the delay of 1370 days. The reason stated in the COD application is that during the period 2011 to 2013, a large number of show-cause notices were issued and orders were passed by various authorities of Central Excise and Service Tax Department demanding service tax under the category of Rent-a-Cab Operator Scheme service. Due to the heavy workload, there was confusion and the present appeal was lost sight of and later on, action was taken to file an appeal before CESTAT in spite of the fact that the appeals involving identical issue had been filed before the Commissioner (A) and the Tribunal.
2. The learned DR opposes the COD application. He submits that the delay is inordinate and relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Team Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd.: 2018-TIOL-130-CESTAT-MUMBAI.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay caused was not deliberate and intentional and also submits that appellant had filed a very large number of appeals on identical issue before the Tribunal, which have all been allowed by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 20935-20958/2016 dated 7.10.2016.
4. Since the appellant has filed several identical appeals before the Tribunal earlier, therefore, we are of the view that the delay caused is not intentional and deliberate, therefore, we condone the delay and with the concurrence of both the parties, the appeal itself is considered for decision on merit.
5. After perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (A) has not decided the issue on merit but has rejected the appeal on the ground of time bar for failure on the part of the appellant to sufficiently explain the delay in filing the appeal before him. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we condone the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (A) and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (A) for passing an order on merit. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Order was pronounced and dictated in Open Court on 09/02/2018) V. PADMANABHAN TECHNICAL MEMBER S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER rv...
ST/21597/2017-DB 4 ST/21597/2017-DB