Allowed

Kaushal Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Apr 2015STA/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the service tax appeal against the CESTAT's dismissal based on a 262-day delay. The Court held that the appellant's delay was excusable due to the sole proprietor's family illness and delegation to a consultant who failed to file, constituting sufficient cause for the delay. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the CESTAT for hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order and judgment of CESTAT are set aside and the matter is remanded to CESTAT to be heard on merits.

Kaushal Construction Co. Vs Commissioner… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Service Tax Appeal No.29 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.04.2015

¶3

M/s Kaushal Construction Co. …..Appellant
versus

¶4

Commissioner of Central Excise .....Respondents

¶5

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶6

Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant-
Assessee
Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-
Revenue

¶7

S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶8

This is an appeal against the order of the CESTAT
dismissing the appellant’s appeal only on the ground that there was
a delay of 262 days.

¶9

2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial
question of law:-

¶10

1. Whether in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the
CESTAT was correct in dismissing
the appellant’s appeal on the
ground of delay.

¶11

3. The order impugned before the CESTAT was received by the
appellant on 04.08.2013. The CESTAT held that there was no
explanation for the delay in the original period of 90 days from
04.08.2013. We find, however, that within the original period of
limitation, the appellant had, in fact, forwarded the papers to the
consultants to file the appeal. The consultant, however, did not
file the appeal in time. The Tribunal did not accept that to be a
sufficient reason for the delay and inferred that the appellant was
not following up the matter. It is important to note that during

¶12

PARKASH CHAND 2015.04.08 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶13

STA-29-2014

¶14

- 2 -

¶15

the initial period itself, the brother of the sole proprietor of
the appellant fell ill and that he was being looked after by the
sole proprietor of the appellant firm. Unfortunately, the brother
expired on 11.06.2014 after a prolonged illness.

¶16

4. We do not see how these two facts taken together cannot
constitute sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The
appellant ought not to be visited with the drastic consequence of
dismissal of the appeal without the same being considered on merits
on account of the Advocate/consultant’s default in not having filed
the appeal in time. Added to this is the fact that during the
original period of limitation it is not as if the appellant was
guilty of any negligence. The appellant was pre-occupied in
looking after his ailing brother.

¶17

5. In the circumstances, the question of law is answered in
favour of the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order
and judgment is set aside. The matter shall be heard by the CESTAT
on merits.

¶18

06.04.2015 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
parkash*JUDGE

¶19

PARKASH CHAND 2015.04.08 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Kaushal Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Construction Co. v. Commissioner, Central Excise, Panchkula

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devender Kumar Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Dhuri Polymers Vs the State of Punjab & Others

M/S Yogesh Bus Service Regd Jalandhar and Anr. Vs Secretary Regional Transport Authority Jalandhar and Ors.

M/S Aggarwal Construction Co. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sunil Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sunil Vs State of Haryana and Others