2014 (8) TMI 508 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - impugned order was addressed to assessee s old address at Mathura Road, instead of sending a copy to the new address at Naraina Industrial Area - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) was aware of the fact that the appellant has left their Mathura Road, Faridabad premises, that is how the copy was sent to the advocate with a request to serve the same to the appellant. In spite of that, the impugned order stands addressed to the appellant at their Mathura Road, Faridabad address. We also note that the copy of the said order was never addressed to the learned advocate on record. In these circumstances, the appellant s submission that they never received the impugned order is required to be accepted. According to the appellant, the said order was received by them on 21-10-2010 and the appeal was filed on 29-10-2010 that is immediately on receipt of this order. As such, taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal due to non-receipt of impugned order, condonation of delay, pre-deposit of penalty.

The judgment addresses the issue of delay in filing the appeal due to the non-receipt of the impugned order by the appellant. The delay was approximately 290 days, and the appellant claimed they had shifted addresses, leading to non-receipt of the order. The advocate submitted that despite informing the office of Commissioner (Appeals) about the new address, the order was still sent to the old address. The advocate requested the delay to be condoned. The Tribunal noted that the notice of hearing had been sent to the advocate at the new address, indicating the awareness of the appellant's address change. However, the impugned order was still addressed to the old address. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission that they never received the order and proceeded to condone the delay based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal was filed promptly upon receipt of the order, leading to the delay being condoned.

Regarding the pre-deposit of penalty, since the appellants had already deposited the entire amount of duty and interest before the passing of the impugned orders, the Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of penalty imposed on them. Consequently, the COD application and stay petition were disposed of accordingly. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Members.