2013 (11) TMI 504 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Appeal itself is within time - Held that - Applicant is a public sector undertaking and in support of the fact of communication of the Order, an affidavit dated 19.06.2013 has been filed by the Applicant. In absence of any contrary evidence produced by the Department, we do not find any reason in accepting the claim of the Applicant. In these circumstances, the Application seeking condonation of purported delay has become infructuous and accordingly, the Application is allowed to be withdrawn by the Applicant - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a delay of 546 days in filing an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Applicant, represented by a Company Secretary, claimed that despite the Order being dated 28.2.2009, they were informed of it only on 26.08.2010, and subsequently filed the Appeal within three months from the date of communication of the Order, on 26.11.2010. The Applicant submitted an affidavit in support of this claim. The Revenue's representative informed the Tribunal that despite writing to the Commissioner's Office on 31.05.2013, no report had been received. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant is a public sector undertaking and had filed an affidavit dated 19.06.2013 regarding the communication of the Order. In the absence of any contradictory evidence from the Revenue, the Tribunal did not find any reason to accept the claim of the Applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Application seeking condonation of delay as infructuous and allowed the Applicant to withdraw it. The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly, with the Stay Petition and the Appeal to follow in due course.

This judgment highlights the importance of timely filing of appeals and the process of seeking condonation of delay. It underscores the significance of providing supporting evidence, such as affidavits, to substantiate claims regarding the communication of orders. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of contrary evidence from the Revenue and the acknowledgment of the Applicant being a public sector undertaking. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the burden of proof in such matters, emphasizing the need for diligence and accuracy in legal proceedings.