2014 (10) TMI 383 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - Appeal has been filed within the condonable period of three months after the expiry of statutory time limit of three months for filing the appeal. The appellant has explained the reason for the delay which was due to non-receipt of the Order-in-Original sent by the department on 5-4-2011. They came to know of the passing of the order only in July 2011 when the recovery proceedings were initiated by the jurisdictional range officer. Immediately, thereafter they obtained a certified copy of the order and filed the appeal. In these circumstances, the delay ought to have been condoned by the appellate authority and there is merit in the appellant s contention. Accordingly, we condone the delay and remand the matter back to the lower appellate authority for passing the order on merits - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal before lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
The case involved a service tax demand against the appellant, confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 50 days beyond the statutory time limit of three months. The appellant claimed they received the adjudication order copy late, leading to the delay. The lower appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, not satisfied with the reasons for the delay. The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned as it was within the condonable period. The appellant cited precedents to support their contention.

The appellant's consultant argued that they did not receive the order sent by speed post promptly, only becoming aware of it when recovery proceedings began. They obtained a certified copy and filed the appeal, causing the delay. The Revenue Commissioner acknowledged the appeal was filed within the condonable period. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appeal was filed within the condonable period after the statutory time limit. The appellant's explanation for the delay, citing non-receipt of the order, was accepted. The Tribunal concluded that the delay should have been condoned, agreeing with the appellant's argument. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the lower appellate authority for a decision on the merits.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the Tribunal condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate authority.