2014 (12) TMI 732 - HC - Central Excise

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 580 days - Reason attributed to delay is lack of knowledge of legal technicalities - Held that - Even if the petitioner was not fully aware about the period of limitation prescribed under the law of limitation, that would not enable him to sleep over his right for inordinate period and claim illiteracy as a ground for defence. Even as per his own affidavit he has merely instructed his advocate to file an appeal. He has never stated that he had signed the authorization form of the advocate or the appeal memo. Surely even a layman is supposed to know that legal proceedings cannot be launched without authorization being given to the legal consultant. He has also not stated that after having assured him that the appeal would be filed, the advocate had at any point of time conveyed to him that the appeal was actually filed. In short, even as per the petitioner s own account he has merely raised contention that he had instructed his advocate to file an appeal neither ensuring that the appeal is prepared duly signed by him and presented before the Tribunal nor did he obtain the confirmation from his advocate that the same is actually filed. The petitioner cannot throw the entire blame on his advocate. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging order of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal on grounds of delay; Maintaining tax appeal; Condonation of delay explanation; Adequacy of explanation for delay; Dismissal of petition by High Court.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal due to inordinate delay. The High Court opined that a tax appeal would have been maintainable against the Tribunal's order, but the petitioner chose to file a writ petition instead. The petitioner was accused of providing taxable services without registration or paying service tax. The Central Excise Commissioner confirmed the service tax demand, leading to an appeal filing delay of 580 days, beyond the 90-day limit. The petitioner claimed lack of legal knowledge and reliance on legal consultants, alleging the advocate failed to file the appeal as assured. The petitioner submitted emails and recovery notices to justify the intention to appeal. Despite additional opportunities to explain the delay, the petitioner's defense remained inadequate.

The High Court found the petitioner's explanation unsatisfactory. Merely instructing the advocate to file an appeal without ensuring proper authorization or confirmation of filing does not absolve the petitioner of responsibility. The Court emphasized that ignorance of legal technicalities does not justify prolonged inaction or blaming the advocate entirely. The Tribunal's decision to reject the delay explanation was upheld by the High Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the Court saw no grounds for interference in writ jurisdiction.