Fcb Ulka Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. on hearing both sides on the application for condonation of the delay, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal.2. the appellants are service tax assessee. according to them the payment was in time. according to the department the payment was delayed attracting levy of interest. the appellants contested this by filing an appeal. there was a delay of about 25 days for which the appellants sought condonation on the ground that the appellants were attempting to put across their point of view to the concerned officers.the commissioner did not find it sufficient reason for condonation.holding that the delay was due to negligence he dismissed the appeal on limitation.3. on perusal of the basic issue we find it to be an arguable one. we also do not find the request for condonation as unreasonable. it could be said that after the assessment order was passed, the appellant would be wasting their time in seeking discussion with the authorities but that would indicate their lack of knowledge and not negligence. we also take note that the ld. commissioner had not invited the appellants for hearing before dismissing their appeal.4. we allow this appeal, remit the proceedings back to the commissioner with the instruction that he shall hear the appellants on merits.

Judgment:
1. On hearing both sides on the application for condonation of the delay, the main appeal itself was taken up for disposal.

2. The appellants are Service Tax assessee. According to them the payment was in time. According to the department the payment was delayed attracting levy of interest. The appellants contested this by filing an appeal. There was a delay of about 25 days for which the appellants sought condonation on the ground that the appellants were attempting to put across their point of view to the concerned officers.

The Commissioner did not find it sufficient reason for condonation.

Holding that the delay was due to negligence he dismissed the appeal on limitation.

3. On perusal of the basic issue we find it to be an arguable one. We also do not find the request for condonation as unreasonable. It could be said that after the assessment order was passed, the appellant would be wasting their time in seeking discussion with the authorities but that would indicate their lack of knowledge and not negligence. We also take note that the ld. Commissioner had not invited the appellants for hearing before dismissing their appeal.

4. We allow this appeal, remit the proceedings back to the Commissioner with the instruction that he shall hear the appellants on merits.