2015 (9) TMI 1497 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 140 days in filing the Appeal - delay on the ground of sickness of appellant - Held that - The nature of ailments shown in the said certificates are on account of high blood pressure and Bronchial Asthma. No medical certificate/prescription has been produced by the appellant to show whether any treatment was being taken by the appellant before 26.02.2013 because high blood pressure and Bronchial Asthma are not a sudden appearance. It is also not brought on record whether now appellant is cured of high blood pressure/Bronchial Asthma when he is able to file the appeal - delay in filing the appeal has not been properly explained by the appellant - COD application rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to appellant's sickness.

In this case, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a 140-day delay in filing an Appeal against Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax. The appellant argued that the delay was due to sickness, supported by medical certificates indicating high blood pressure and Bronchial Asthma. However, the Tribunal noted that the medical certificates were obtained after receiving the Order-in-Original, raising questions about the timing and continuity of the appellant's illness. The Tribunal observed that no evidence was presented regarding the appellant's treatment before the receipt of the order or whether the appellant had been cured of the illnesses by the time of filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained, leading to the rejection of the condonation application and the dismissal of the Appeal.

This judgment highlights the importance of providing timely and comprehensive evidence to support claims of sickness causing delays in legal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for documentation showing the continuity and treatment of illnesses to justify delays adequately. The decision underscores the significance of establishing a clear and consistent link between the claimed sickness and its impact on the ability to comply with legal timelines. Failure to provide sufficient evidence regarding the illness and its effect on the appellant's capacity to act promptly can result in the rejection of requests for condonation of delay and dismissal of appeals.