2014 (12) TMI 126 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 256 days - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - The specific case of the petitioner is that he received the impugned order passed by the second respondent on 2-2-2011. Since in the order passed by the first respondent it is observed to the effect that the order passed by the second respondent has been received on behalf of assessee, this court is of the view that the reason given for dismissal by the first respondent cannot be accepted and further, no relevant document has been filed on the side of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner has received the order passed by the second respondent immediately after 24-2-2010. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside and the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant are having substance. - Delay condoned - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeal before the first respondent
- Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Analysis:
1. The Civil Miscellaneous appeal was directed against an order passed by the first respondent, involving a cable TV operator in Aruppukottai directed to pay a demand of &8377;1,53,000/- towards Service Tax. The appeal was filed due to a delay of 256 days in challenging the Final Order passed by the second respondent, which was dismissed by the first respondent, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in considering the provisions of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, the requirement of serving the Order-in-Revision as per Section 37C, and the justifiability of rejecting the delay condonation petition by the first respondent Tribunal.

3. The appellant contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to receiving the order from the second respondent on 2-2-2011, contrary to the first respondent's dismissal based on the assumption that the order was received on behalf of the assessee. The court found the dismissal unjustified as the respondent failed to provide evidence of immediate receipt after 24-2-2010, leading to the setting aside of the first respondent's order.

4. The only issue for consideration in the appeal was whether the delay of 256 days could be condoned. The court, after reviewing the facts and contentions, allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, set aside the first respondent's order, and granted the delay execution petition filed by the appellant petitioner, emphasizing the substance of the raised legal questions and the lack of evidence supporting the dismissal by the first respondent.