2014 (10) TMI 565 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 175 days - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that the appellant made Sanjayraj Hotels & Resorts has received the impugned order in August 2013. We also find that the entire explanation given by the Ld Counsel and as mentioned on the ground seeking condonation of delay is that Director of the Company being a political personality could not find time to attend to the impugned order and also that the levy has been declared as unconstitutional by the Hon ble high Court of Gujarat. Perusal of the records indicates that before the Adjudicating authority, appellant s were represented by authorised signatories of the appellant. It is also noticed that for verifications to arrive quantum of service tax liability of contract, summons were issued to the appellant who had specifically recorded and stated that authorised representative of the appellant will appear and give detailed explanation. The said authorised representative was summoned and statements were recorded. Subsequently, show cause notice was issued to the appellant who did not reply nor did he participate in the adjudication proceedings. On receipt of the adjudication order, an appeal to the first appellate authority was filed belatedly 15 days, which was condoned by the first appellate authority. In the entire case records, it transpires that the appellant had been taking the issue very lightly. appellant has not made out a case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue at hand was the condonation of a delay of 175 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant sought condonation, attributing the delay to the political activities of the Director, who was a sitting Member of Legislative Assembly. The appellant's counsel argued that the Director was preoccupied with political responsibilities during the relevant period, leading to the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. The appellant contended that the demand for service tax, if confirmed, would result in the recovery of tax deemed unconstitutional by the High Court of Gujarat.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanation unsatisfactory for several reasons. Firstly, it was noted that the appellant had previously been represented by authorized signatories during proceedings before the Adjudicating authority. Despite summons and opportunities for explanation, the appellant did not actively participate in the adjudication process. Additionally, the application for condonation of delay lacked a sworn affidavit from the Director or authorized representative explaining the cause of delay. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant could have utilized the services of the authorized representative to file the appeal on time, but no valid reason for the delay was provided in the application.

Based on the above observations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to establish a valid case for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the stay petition and appeal were also dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 20.8.2014 by the Tribunal.