2010 (11) TMI 588 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - It is undisputed that the Order-in-Original was served upon the applicant by Registered A.D. and applicant s Counsel, had intimated the office of the applicant regarding the receipt of the Order-in-Original - Chief Controller Finance of the applicant-company has filed an affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay of 53 days which is in substance the entire submissions made by the ld. Chartered Accountant - in this case the applicant would not have gained anything by not filing the appeal in time and the reasons given by the applicant in the application for condonation of delay seems to be justifiable aptly supported by an affidavit by a senior functionary - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 53 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The delay of 53 days in filing the appeal was attributed to the resignations of key personnel handling the tax matters, resulting in a lack of awareness about the adjudication proceedings. The appellant contended that the delay was beyond their control and not due to negligence. They supported their argument with an affidavit from the Chief Controller Finance. The appellant cited various judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and lower courts, to justify their request for condonation of delay.

The respondent, represented by the SDR, argued that the appellant had received the Order-in-Original and should have filed the appeal within the stipulated time. The respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court to emphasize that the order sent by Registered Post with AD is deemed to be served on the assessee, shifting the responsibility to the appellant to act promptly upon receipt of such orders.

Upon considering the submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the Order-in-Original was served on the appellant, who was duly informed by their Counsel. However, the key personnel who received the information had resigned, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Karnataka, emphasizing that the appellant would not have gained anything by not filing the appeal within the limitation period. The Tribunal found the reasons provided by the appellant justifiable, supported by an affidavit from a senior functionary. Therefore, in the interest of justice and following legal precedents, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay of 53 days. The Registry was directed to accept the stay petition and appeal for further proceedings.

This judgment highlights the importance of justifying delays in legal proceedings, the impact of personnel changes on timely actions, and the significance of supporting arguments with relevant case laws to seek condonation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.