2013 (12) TMI 158 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay occurred due to heavy work load of the dealing person - Held that - It is apparent from the affidavit, that on 24.9.2012 the demand draft was prepared and grounds of appeal were put up for approval before the General Manager who approved on 5.10.2012. It is not clear as to why the appeal was not filed thereafter. We are not satisfied with the reason that after preparation of the appeal why the said learned counsel sought for clarification on 12.10.2012 and in the meantime the Accounts Officer could not provide the clarification as he was admitted in Apollo Hospital on 29.9.2012. We are not satisfied with the reason as stated in the affidavit. It is seen that despite the preparation of appeal and approved by the General Manager on 5.10.2012, the appeal was filed only on 11.1.2013. It is a clear case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal; Negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant.

Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant, a Government of India undertaking, sought condonation of a 172-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was due to the illness of the dealing person responsible for filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to the heavy workload and sudden illness of the Accounts Officer. The appellant contended that there was no negligence or inaction on their part. The Tribunal noted that the appeal should have been filed by a certain date and examined the events following that period as detailed in the affidavit. Despite the preparation and approval of the appeal, it was not filed promptly, leading to a finding of gross negligence and inaction on the appellant's part.

Negligence and Inaction:
The respondent argued that the explanation provided for the delay was irrelevant as the demand draft was prepared before the Accounts Officer's hospitalization. The Tribunal scrutinized the timeline of events post the date by which the appeal should have been filed. It was observed that despite the preparation and approval of the appeal, there were delays in filing it. The Accounts Officer's hospitalization was cited as a reason for seeking clarifications and causing further delays. The Tribunal found the reasons provided unsatisfactory and deemed the delay a clear case of gross negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and examining the events surrounding the delay, the Tribunal concluded that there was no valid reason to condone the 172-day delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal along with the stay application was dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely action and adherence to procedural requirements in legal matters.

Judgment Outcome:
The Tribunal, comprising Shri P.K. Das and Shri Mathew John, JJ., pronounced the decision in open court, rejecting the condonation of delay application and dismissing the appeal along with the stay application.