2010 (9) TMI 645 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Condonation of delay of three days in filing the appeal - As some electrical work was going on in the concerned section, regular work was interrupted and records got shifted from one place to another. Thus this marginal delay had occurred - The office of the Commissioner (Appeals) who passed the impugned order and the office of the appellant-Commissioner are situated on the same floor of the building -Therefore, the submission that the respondents had received a copy of the order, after a period of 110 days of passing of the same appeared to be factually incorrect - Find no reason to suspect the averments made in the COD application - That instead of the officer authorized to file the appeal, the appellant-Commissioner himself has signed the COD application does not appear relevant to the application - The marginal delay in filing the appeal is condoned - COD application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, Contention regarding delay, Verification of submissions, Condonation of delay, Cross objection

Delay in filing appeal:
The Revenue filed an application for condonation of a three-day delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was received on 24-12-2009, and the appeal should have been filed on 23-3-2010. The delay was attributed to interruptions in regular work due to ongoing electrical work and the shifting of records.

Contention regarding delay:
During the hearing, the respondents contested the submissions concerning the delay in the condonation of delay application. They argued that they had received the impugned order on 3-9-2009, not on 24-12-2009 as claimed by the Revenue. The respondents contended that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed as time-barred due to the delay.

Verification of submissions:
The Bench directed the learned Jt. CDR to submit relevant records to verify the submissions in the condonation of delay application. The records included the Outward Correspondence register and Tapal Book for the years 2009 & 2010 of the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) to authenticate the claims made in the application.

Condonation of delay:
Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the impugned order had not been received prior to 24-12-2009, as claimed by the Revenue. The Bench noted that there was no reason to doubt the averments made in the condonation of delay application. Despite the appellant-Commissioner signing the application instead of the authorized officer, the marginal delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the condonation of delay application was allowed.

Cross objection:
The cross objection filed by the respondent was also disposed of in light of the condonation of delay and verification of submissions. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 15-9-2010, resolving the issues related to the delay in filing the appeal and the cross objection.