2014 (12) TMI 286 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Bar of limitation - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - It is seen from the impugned order that the order was sent to the appellants as well as their Ld. Advocate, who appeared personal hearing before the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as before this Tribunal. The appellants in their letter dated 15.12.2011, stated that the appellant was informed by their counsel that the Final Order has been passed. Thus, it is clearly evident that the Ld. Counsel had received the impugned order. Section 37C of the 1994 Act read with Rules 13 and 35 of the 1982 Rules clearly indicate that communication of the order to authorized agent of a person is sufficient communication. Thus when the order was passed by the Tribunal in presence of counsel of the appellant, the order shall also be deemed to be communicated on the same date and the submission of the appellant that unless the order is received by the appellant in person, the order shall not be treated to be communicated to the appellant, cannot be accepted. Revenue placed the evidence in so far as the order was sent to the appellants by speed post, no attempt was made by the appellants to refute this evidence. It is also not disputed the service of order to the Ld. Advocate of the appellant. So, we are unable to accept the contention of the Ld. Advocate that the impugned order was served by letter dated 22.12.2011 of the Superintendent (Appeals). There is a delay in filing of appeal and no COD application has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of filing appeals - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed beyond the statutory period without application for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
The judgment before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai dealt with the issue of the maintainability of an appeal filed beyond the statutory period without an application for condonation of delay. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the appeal's timeliness. The Revenue contended that the impugned order was dispatched to the appellant within the stipulated time, and no application for condonation of delay was filed. The appellant, represented by an Advocate, acknowledged receiving the order but failed to file the appeal within the prescribed period. The Revenue produced evidence of dispatch through speed post, which the appellant did not refute. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's Advocate received the order, as confirmed in their correspondence. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents to establish that communication to the authorized agent constitutes valid service. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found no grounds to accept the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeals were rejected as time-barred, and stay applications were dismissed.

The Ld. Advocate for the appellants argued against the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasons such as receiving the order late and questioning the validity of service through speed post. The appellant claimed that the order's date should be counted from the amendment, which corrected a typographical error. The appellant also submitted an affidavit stating non-receipt of the order. However, the Tribunal found no merit in these arguments, emphasizing that the order was communicated to the authorized agent, the Advocate. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contentions regarding the validity of service through speed post and the relevance of the amendment date. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue's position that the appeal was time-barred due to the lack of a condonation of delay application. Consequently, the appeals were deemed inadmissible, and stay applications were dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue's objection regarding the appeal's timeliness, as the appellant failed to file within the statutory period and did not seek condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized the communication of the order to the authorized agent as sufficient for service. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the consequences of not filing appeals within the prescribed period.