2013 (10) TMI 530 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Late delivery of adjudication order - Held that - The adjudication order was thereupon pasted on the front door of the appellant by drawing up a panchnama - no affidavit has been filed to the said effect nor the original of the panchnama is filed, for perusal of the Court. In the circumstances, petitioner s assertions are neither traversed nor rebutted by Revenue. The petitioner s assertion is therefore considered to have been established. Consequently, there being no delay in filing of the appeal, this application is ordered - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Service of adjudication order and its impact on the timeline for filing the appeal.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the adjudication order dated 30.11.2010. The appellant claimed that the adjudication order was received on 6.8.2012, and the appeal was filed within 90 days from the date of such receipt, asserting that the appeal was within time. The Revenue was granted time to submit a report on the assertion of the appellant regarding the service of the adjudication order after nearly 2 years from the date of the order. Despite multiple adjournments requested by the Revenue to contest the condonation of delay application, no affidavit was filed to rebut the appellant's assertions. As a result, the appellant's assertion was considered established by the Court, leading to the conclusion that there was no delay in filing the appeal, and the application for condonation of delay was ordered.

Service of Adjudication Order:
The Revenue claimed that the adjudication order was sent for delivery to the appellant, but the business premises were found closed, and the whereabouts of the appellant were unknown. Consequently, the adjudication order was pasted on the front door of the appellant by drawing up a panchnama. However, the Revenue failed to file an affidavit to support this claim, nor did they provide the original panchnama for the Court's perusal. As a result, the appellant's assertions regarding the date of receipt of the adjudication order remained unchallenged and were deemed to be established by the Court. This lack of evidence from the Revenue led to the Court's decision in favor of the appellant, confirming that the appeal was filed within the required timeline and that there was no delay in filing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the impact of the service of the adjudication order on the timeline for filing the appeal, highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the Court in this case.