2014 (5) TMI 615 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 580 days - Advocate did not file appeal in time - Held that - appellant had only forwarded the communications received from the Office of the Superintendent of Service tax, Rural Range, Bhavnagar to their Advocate. It is very clear from the record that the appellant was always reminded by the authorities to pay the tax due or produce a copy of the stay order against order-in-original. The appellant had kept quite on all these reminders of the Department. In our view, the appellant has not made out any case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Bench. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay of the appeal is dismissed and devoid of merits - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, citing a delay of approximately 580 days. The appellant, represented by Shri Mahesh Ladumor, explained that the delay was due to their advocate's failure to file the appeal on time despite receiving the necessary documents. The appellant, who had studied only up to the 5th standard and hailed from a small village, claimed that they had forwarded the Order in Original to their advocate, who did not take timely action. The appellant further stated that after receiving recovery notices from the Department, they tried to follow up, but the appeal was not filed until much later through a different service tax return preparer.

2. The Departmental Representative contested the appellant's reasons for the delay, arguing that there was no justifiable cause presented for the prolonged delay in filing the appeal.

3. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest receiving the Order in Original on time. The Tribunal observed a significant delay of 580 days, attributed by the appellant to their advocate's inaction. The appellant attempted to obtain an affidavit from the previous advocate, who refused to provide one, verbally acknowledging his failure to file the appeal. However, the emails exchanged between the appellant and the advocate did not show any reminders from the appellant to file the appeal.

4. The Tribunal found that the appellant merely forwarded communications from the Department to their advocate without taking proactive steps in response to reminders to pay the tax due or produce a stay order against the Order in Original. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. As a result, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed for lacking merit, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal as well.

5. The judgment was pronounced on 23rd April 2014 by M V Ravindran and H K Thakur, JJ., with the decision to dismiss the application for condonation of delay and consequently the stay petition and appeal.