2014 (7) TMI 1136 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 311 days - Invalid of service of order - Held that - Security service is an agent of the applicant and it is also responsibility of the security service to receive the mails, courier etc. We find force in the submission of the learned Authorised Representative that the appellant appeared in the personal hearing before the adjudicating authority and thereafter, there was no follow up by the applicant in respect of the present proceedings. Thus, it is a clear case of sheer negligence and/or inaction on the part of the appellant. - No satisfactory reason for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, both the applications for condonation of delay of filing appeals are rejected - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeals, Validity of service of Adjudication order to security agency, Negligence of appellant in following up proceedings.

Delay in filing appeals:
The appellant sought condonation of delay of 311 days in filing the appeals against two Adjudication orders dated 10-5-2012. The appellant argued that the delay was not deliberate, citing a series of demands on the same issue and previous cases where appeals were allowed. The appellant also referenced a Supreme Court decision to support their case. However, the Revenue contended that the order was served on time, and the appellant's Counsel had appeared before the adjudicating authority but failed to follow up on the matter, indicating negligence. The Tribunal noted the arguments but found no satisfactory reason for condonation of delay, leading to the rejection of the applications and dismissal of the appeals.

Validity of service of Adjudication order to security agency:
The main contention revolved around the validity of serving the Adjudication order to the security agency, M/s. ISS Integrated Facility Service Pvt. Ltd., as per Section 37C(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that service to the security agency was not valid, while the Revenue presented evidence that the order was served to the appellant's office and acknowledged by M/s. Aircel Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant section, which mandates sending orders by Regd. Post with acknowledgment due to the intended person or their authorized agent. Internal communication revealed that the security company failed to deliver the order to the appellant, indicating a deficiency in service. The Tribunal found the service to the security agency as an agent of the appellant valid, supporting the Revenue's position.

Negligence of appellant in following up proceedings:
The Tribunal highlighted the appellant's negligence in following up on the proceedings after the initial appearance before the adjudicating authority. Despite being aware of the order and the need for further action, the appellant failed to pursue the matter, leading to a clear case of inaction. This negligence was a significant factor in the Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation of delay and dismiss the appeals. The lack of follow-up by the appellant was deemed as sheer negligence, contributing to the unfavorable outcome of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the issues of delay in filing appeals, the validity of service to the security agency, and the appellant's negligence in following up on the proceedings. The decision to reject the condonation of delay and dismiss the appeals was based on a lack of satisfactory reasons for the delay, the valid service to the security agency, and the appellant's inaction in pursuing the matter further.