2014 (1) TMI 1678 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay of 109 days - Held that - Applicant had not stated the reasons for delay in their application in detail. It is noticed that the applicant had not stated how they have procured the order and where it was misplaced. The Tribunal in the case of Rajalakshmi (2013 (5) TMI 429 - CESTAT MUMBAI) held that the concerned clerk kept the impugned order in the file and did not bring it to the knowledge of the management as the negligence of the employee and is not sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period of limitation. In the case of (2001 (9) TMI 693 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI), it is held that delay due to leaving of the job by the dealing clerk in excise matter is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay of appeal filed beyond the normal period - delay was caused due to the concerned clerk leaving the applicant-company which cannot be sufficient reason for the delay in filing appeal - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to employee leaving job.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI involved the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to an employee leaving the job. The applicant filed an application for condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to an employee who was responsible for service tax matters leaving the job. The applicant received the order on 7.2.2012 but filed the appeal on 3.8.2012. The applicant's counsel submitted an affidavit of the company's Director to support the claim. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel argued that the applicant did not provide detailed reasons for the delay and had not cooperated with the adjudication proceeding. The Revenue's counsel cited precedents to support their argument.

Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's submission that the applicant had not sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay in their application. The Tribunal referenced previous cases where delays caused by employees' negligence or leaving the job were not considered sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal concluded that the delay caused by the concerned employee leaving the applicant-company was not a valid reason for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the condonation of delay application and disposed of the appeal along with the stay application.