AVAS ENGINEERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 9 months in filing appeal. It was submitted by the ld. Consultant that the delay occurred because the appellant is a proprietary concern and the proprietor manages everything and it is basically one man show. Further, the proprietor is a heart patient and for about 1 -2 months, the proprietor had fallen sick and was undergoing treatment. Further it was submitted that being an individual, he did not understand the full consequences of the Order -in -Appeal, which was issued on an appeal filed by the Department, imposing penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. After discharging the entire amount of Service Tax liability and penalty to the extent of 25% of Service Tax and also penalty under Section 77, appellant was not aware that there were other penalties to be paid. He submits that because of this difficulty, the delay occurred and seeks condonation of delay.

(2.) LD . AR submits none of these is a valid reason for condonation of delay and the appellant was sick only for a short period during the period when the delay occurred and even if considering that the appellant is a proprietary firm and is one man show, it cannot be said that the appellant could not understand the order issued to him, which was very clear.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by both sides, I find that in the case of proprietary firm, it is a one man show, and there can be failure in undertaking the requirements as per law. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case such as the penalty was imposed on the appellant on an appeal filed by the Revenue and the appellant is a heart patient, medical certificate was submitted that he was not well, and the nature of the business in which the appellant is involved, I consider that in this case, a lenient view is called for and accordingly the delay is required to be condoned and the delay is condoned.