2013 (3) TMI 180 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of Delay - Proof of service of order - Held that - the proof advanced by the Revenue indicates dispatch of the said order to M/s. Chandigarh Network Systems (P) Ltd. Chandigarh. There is no complete address given in the said registry. As such, a doubt can arise as to whether the said order stand actual received by the appellant or not. Otherwise also, we find that though the order was passed in 2009, revenue only approached the appellant in 2011 for recovery of dues. If the Revenue would have approached the appellant for recovery of the confirmed demand at an early date, the appellant could have come to know about passing of the impugned order. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, Actual service of the impugned order, Completeness of address on the order, Condonation of delay

In this case, the main issue before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI was the delay of 765 days in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed they were unaware of the impugned order passed on 16.6.09 until they received a letter from their jurisdictional Range office in 2011. The appellant requested a certified copy of the order to file an appeal, but due to incomplete address details on the dispatched order, doubts arose regarding its actual receipt by the appellant. The Revenue reported that the order was sent via registered/speed post in 2009, but the appellant argued that the incomplete address raised uncertainty about the delivery. Additionally, it was noted that the Revenue only approached the appellant for recovery in 2011, despite the order being passed in 2009. The appellant had already deposited Rs. 12 lakhs towards the confirmed duty, indicating their willingness to comply. Considering these factors, the Tribunal decided to condone the delay and allowed the application. A stay petition was scheduled for disposal on a later date, providing further opportunity for resolution.