2015 (1) TMI 1260 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing an appeal - it was contended that appellant came to know about the passing of the order when the Revenue approached them for recovery proceedings - Held that - The order impugned in the present appeal was admittedly received by the appellant on 04.07.2012 read with the corrigendum received on 19.07.2012. Even if the date of receipt of corrigendum is considered to be the relevant date instead of considering the receipt of the impugned order on 04.07.2012 the last date for filing appeal expired on 18.10.2012. As per the appellant themselves their Manager (Finance) who was looking after the tax matters was in their service till 1st October 2012 i.e. he left the job only a few days prior to the expiry of the last date. Even during that period of two and half months or more the appellants have not taken any steps to get the appeal prepared. No evidence that they were taking any steps to file the appeal stand produced before us. As such even if the appellant s plea that they came to know about the passing of the impugned order only when the said letter was received by them is accepted even then there is a delay of more than 6 months in filing the present appeal. The said letter was received by the appellant on 20.12.2012 clearly indicating that the order of the Commissioner is appealable before Tribunal. Even then the appeal was filed on 17.06.2013 i.e. after a period of about 6 months without giving any reasonable cause for such a huge delay of 6 months in filing the present appeal. - Condonation denied - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay application

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment deals with a delay of 242 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner. The impugned order was received by the appellant on specific dates, and the last date for filing the appeal expired prior to the actual filing date. The appellant argued that their Manager (Finance) responsible for tax matters left the job without informing the management about the order, leading to the delay. However, the tribunal found no evidence that steps were taken to file the appeal during the manager's tenure. The appellant's claim that they only found out about the order when approached for recovery proceedings was also dismissed as the delay was still significant even from that point.

Condonation of delay application:
The appellant submitted a condonation of delay application, citing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The advocate argued in support of the application, emphasizing the circumstances surrounding the manager's departure and subsequent actions taken by the appellant upon learning about the order. The Revenue, however, contended that there were no justifiable grounds for condoning such a substantial delay. The tribunal considered both sides' arguments and concluded that there was no reasonable ground for condoning the delay, ultimately rejecting the condonation of delay application.

In summary, the judgment focused on the substantial delay in filing the appeal against the Commissioner's order, analyzing the reasons provided by the appellant and the Revenue for and against condoning the delay. The tribunal found no valid justification for the delay and rejected the condonation of delay application, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal as being barred by limitation.