2016 (8) TMI 1266 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - section 5 of Limitation Act - Held that - we are not satisfied with the explanation furnished for the delay that apart we also granted opportunity to appellant s counsel to make submissions on merits as well and after hearing we are not satisfied to grant indulgence prayed for - application for COD dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing excise appeal under Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act, evasion of service tax by cable network service provider, confirmation of service tax demand by Tribunal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an excise appeal filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 challenging the order of CESTAT dated 3-3-2011. The primary issue highlighted in the judgment is the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal. The appellant sought condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, submitting medical prescriptions as evidence. However, the court noted that the last prescription submitted was dated February, 2012, and the appellant did not claim to have ceased business during the delay period. The court found the explanation unsatisfactory, especially considering the nature of the case involving evasion of service tax by the appellant, who was providing cable network services without paying the required service tax since 16-8-2002.

Furthermore, it was revealed that the Central Excise Division had received information about the appellant's non-compliance with service tax regulations, leading to a search of the appellant's premises and the subsequent issuance of a show cause notice within the statutory limitation period. Despite being given the opportunity to present arguments on the merits of the case, the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or address the evasion of service tax allegations adequately. Consequently, the court rejected the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, rendering the appeal incompetent and subsequently dismissing it.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the importance of timely filing appeals, especially in cases involving tax evasion and statutory compliance. The court's decision to dismiss the appeal due to the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay serves as a reminder of the significance of adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters, particularly in excise appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944.