2015 (11) TMI 1418 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - delay of 291 days - Held that - The medical certificate when discloses that the appellant was under treatment from 1.2.2013 that does not reveal after 23.11.2012 whether the appellant had any knowledge before his treatment started. It is also curious to notice that 21 days before expiry of the period of filing of the appeal the appellant was under treatment. Added to this, it is further noticeable that when the appellant was discharged from the hospital on 15.8.2013, there were no steps taken by him till 11.12.2013 which was the date of filing of appeal. - The cause stated in the application does not appeal to common sense when there were no steps taken before or after expiry of the limitation. The wide gap of four months from the date of discharge from treatment till date of filing of the appeal does not satisfy the reason of delay. In such circumstances, the plea of loss of the impugned order for a temporary period and discovery thereof after a span of time is untenable. Tribunal has experienced frequently the plea of leaving of an employee soon after an impugned order is received by a litigant and sudden discovery thereof after some time to seek delay condonation. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Condonation of delay, Service tax demand

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI dealt with the issue of delay in filing an appeal. The appellant had approached the Tribunal with a delay of 291 days, citing reasons related to the receipt of the Order-in-Original and subsequent health issues. The appellant claimed that due to being under treatment for infective hepatitis from 1.2.2013, the appeal was filed late on 11.12.2013. However, the Tribunal noted several discrepancies in the appellant's submission. The appellant failed to provide essential details regarding the employee who received the order, including their identity, contact information, and employment status. The medical certificate presented did not conclusively establish that the appellant was unaware of the order before starting treatment. Additionally, a significant gap between the discharge from the hospital and the filing of the appeal raised doubts about the genuine cause of delay.

The Tribunal emphasized that the focus should be on the cause of delay rather than its duration. In this case, the reasons provided did not align with common sense, especially considering the substantial service tax demand involved. The Tribunal expressed concern over the potential misuse of delay condonation applications to evade responsibilities, particularly in cases where significant amounts were at stake. The Tribunal highlighted that the delay had severely impacted the Revenue's ability to recover dues, and leniency in such situations could encourage dilatory tactics to the detriment of Revenue's interests.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanations unsatisfactory and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The decision was made to uphold the interest of justice and prevent any undue advantage gained through delaying tactics. Consequently, both the stay application and the appeal were also dismissed due to the rejection of the condonation of delay application. The Tribunal concluded that the delay condonation request, in this case, amounted to an abuse of the legal process, considering the significant time elapsed since the adjudication order without the recovery of the demand.

This judgment underscores the importance of providing valid and reasonable grounds for seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. It highlights the need for parties to demonstrate genuine reasons supported by concrete evidence when requesting leniency for delayed actions, especially in matters involving substantial financial implications. The decision serves as a reminder that the judiciary closely scrutinizes delay condonation requests to prevent misuse and uphold the integrity of the legal system.