2011 (5) TMI 807 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 260 days involved in the filing of the appeal Held that - no copy of the order was sent or otherwise delivered to the advocate. Service of a copy of the order on the counsel for the party is a mandatory requirement of the rule of natural justice, which is ordinarily followed in the Department, the lower appellate authority deviated from the practice. This deviation appears to have caused prejudice to the party, application stands allowed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, service of order, condonation of delay, compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a 260-day delay in filing the appeal due to issues with the receipt of the impugned order. The order was dispatched on 24-12-2009, but the appellant claimed they did not receive it, leading to the delay in filing the appeal on 9-9-2010.

Service of Order:
The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not follow the correct procedure for serving the order. It was highlighted that the order was sent by Registered Post but returned undelivered, and no further steps, as required by Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, were taken to ensure proper service.

Condonation of Delay:
The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant's counsel was not served a copy of the order, which is a mandatory requirement for natural justice. The failure to serve the counsel caused prejudice to the appellant, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that the deviation from the usual practice of serving the order on the counsel was a crucial factor in condoning the delay.

Compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act:
It was noted that the appellate authority did not exhaust the procedures outlined in Section 37C of the Central Excise Act regarding the modes of service of the order. The failure to follow these procedures further supported the appellant's argument for condonation of the delay.

Conclusion:
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal found sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The failure to serve the counsel and the lack of compliance with the statutory procedures for service of the order were crucial factors in the decision. The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures in such cases.