2015 (8) TMI 1015 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 536 days - Held that - affidavit filed in support of the application that they have received all the documents from the Advocate as on 30.11.2012, whereas, in the undated letter of the Advocate Shri Nirmal Kr. Singh that the papers were handed over to the Applicant on 01.11.2011. Thus, there are contradictions in the claims of the Applicant. Besides, except the undated letter of the junior advocate to Mr.R.N.Sarkar, no other correspondences of the Advocate has been produced. Even though the Appeal was filed alongwith the Misc. Application for condonation of delay, no letter/affidavit from the Advocate Shri R.N.Sarkar has been enclosed, who expired almost a year later. These circumstances, lead to an inevitable inference that the reasons cited by the Applicant are neither bona fide nor sufficient warranting condonation. We agree with the Ld.A.R. for Revenue that delay could be condoned only when sufficient cause is shown by the Applicant as laid down in various decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court including in Living Media India Ltd. s case (2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Following the said principle, we do not find any merit in the Application of the Applicant - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 536 days in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of a 536-day delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's representative explained that the delay was due to the Advocate's failure to file the Appeal promptly. The Advocate received the order-in-original on 05.04.2011, prepared the Appeal on 30.05.2011, but did not file it. The appellant only became aware of the non-filing in September 2012. After retrieving the papers in November 2012, a new consultant filed the documents and the Appeal on 24.12.2012. The appellant claimed that the delay was not their fault but solely due to the Advocate's inaction. They presented an undated letter from a junior Advocate of the deceased Advocate, stating the papers were returned in November 2011, and the Advocate passed away in November 2013.

The Revenue's Special Counsel contested the appellant's claim, arguing that the delay was unjustified. They questioned the lack of correspondence with the Advocate and the absence of evidence showing preparation of the necessary fees draft for filing the Appeal. The Revenue relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media Ltd., emphasizing the necessity of demonstrating sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Special Counsel contended that the appellant failed to provide convincing reasons justifying the delay.

After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted the significant delay of 536 days. Despite the appellant attributing the delay to the Advocate, the Tribunal found no substantial evidence supporting this claim. Discrepancies were observed in the dates regarding when the papers were handed over to the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of additional correspondence from the Advocate and the absence of an affidavit or letter from the deceased Advocate. Concluding that the reasons presented by the appellant were neither genuine nor adequate for condonation, the Tribunal dismissed the Application. Citing precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay requires a valid and sufficient cause. Consequently, the Stay Application and Appeal were also dismissed by the Tribunal.