2009 (1) TMI 560 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to illness.
2. Upholding the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty on commission received for business auxiliary service rendered to BSNL.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with applications for condonation of delay due to illness of a partner of the assessee-company. The delay was not satisfactorily explained even though the period fell within the condonable timeframe. The partner was on bed rest for two months due to Hepatitis/jaundice, supported by a medical certificate. However, the appeals were not filed promptly after the bed rest period ended. Although the partner's bed rest was extended for another two months, this information was not provided to the authorities. The appellants failed to explain why the appeals were not filed during the extended bed rest period. Consequently, the delay was deemed unsatisfactorily explained, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Upholding Service Tax Demand:
The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of service tax on commission received by the appellants from BSNL for business auxiliary services, along with interest and penalty. The appellants received orders confirming the demand on 30-3-2007 and filed appeals on 28-9-2007 with applications for condonation of delay. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals citing unsatisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal found that the delay was not adequately justified, as the appellants did not file the appeals promptly after the partner's extended bed rest period ended. Despite the submission of a medical certificate for the initial bed rest period, the failure to provide information about the extension and the delayed filing of appeals led to the dismissal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty, affirming the orders of the Deputy Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, through the judgment delivered by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri P. Karthikeyan, Vice-President, addressed the issues of condonation of delay in filing appeals due to illness and upheld the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty on commission received for business auxiliary services. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, as the appellants failed to promptly file the appeals after the partner's extended bed rest period. Despite providing a medical certificate for the initial period of illness, the lack of communication regarding the extension and the delayed filing of appeals led to the dismissal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, upholding the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty.