2015 (11) TMI 562 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 3years - Held that - There is no evidence on record indicating the developments as projected by the assessee, except an affidavit to that effect. No details stand given by the appellant as to when was the earlier advocate, Shri Hamza was appointed by them and when was the appeal papers said to have been prepared by him, were signed and by whom. There is no affidavit of the General Manager of the company, who is said to have signed the papers. Further, it is not coming on record as to whether the demand draft, which is required to be annexed to the appeal, was actually prepared by the appellant and was handed over to the earlier advocate. However, as per the appellant, the earlier advocate, Shri Hamza closed down his office and shifted to Dubai. In this circumstance, it is not coming on record as to which person in the office of the earlier advocate handed over to the appeal papers subsequently to the appellant - delay in filing the appeal has occurred on account of the appellant not being vigilant enough to ensure the filing of the appeal and not making any enquires from the advocate s office within a reasonable period. The delay is huge delay of 3 years and cannot condone for the mere asking for the same. As such, we find no reasonable and genuine reason for condoning the said delay and accordingly, COD application is rejected. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay (COD) application

Delay in filing appeal:
The judgment pertains to an appeal filed by the appellant with a delay of almost 3 years beyond the normal period of limitation. The impugned order-in-original was passed by the Commissioner on a specific date, and the appellant received it a few days later. The appellant claimed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the advocate's office closing down and shifting to Dubai, resulting in a lack of communication regarding the appeal status. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no concrete evidence or details provided by the appellant regarding the timeline of events, such as when the advocate was appointed, when the appeal papers were prepared and signed, and by whom. The General Manager's affidavit, who allegedly signed the papers, was also missing. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant failed to be vigilant in ensuring the appeal filing and did not make timely inquiries from the advocate's office. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reasonable or genuine grounds to condone the significant delay of 3 years in filing the appeal.

Condonation of delay (COD) application:
The appellant submitted a Condonation of Delay (COD) application, citing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that they handed over the impugned order to their advocate for appeal preparation, but only discovered the appeal was not filed when the Revenue sent a notice for dues recovery in 2014. The appellant then procured the appeal papers from the advocate's office, which had shifted to Dubai, and filed the appeal through another advocate. Despite the appellant's contentions, the Tribunal found the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's version of events. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of crucial details and affidavits, such as the advocate's appointment date, the signing of appeal papers, and the whereabouts of the demand draft required for the appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the COD application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on grounds of limitation.