2015 (12) TMI 15 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Power of Commissioner to condone delay beyond the period of 1 month - Held that - As per the postal document, the impugned order stands delivered to the appellant on 12.1.2013. Not only the signature of the recipient person stands appended on the said postal receipt but the seal of the company is also put on the same, showing thereby the said order stands received by an authorized person of the company. On the contrary, the appellant has not been able to show as to who was the person who actually put his signature and how the said person was not their employee and not authorized to receive the said speed post. We fully agree with learned A.R. that it is only when the actual receipt is in doubt then the fact of sending the impugned order by Registered A.D., would arise. When there is a proof of delivery of the order, the fact that it was sent by speed post and not by registered A.D, will not have any effect on the situation. As such, we conclude that the order-in-original having been received by the appellant on 12.1.2013, the appeal filed on 9.10.2013 is admittedly beyond the normal period of limitation and also beyond the condonable period of one month which the Commissioner (Appeals) is rested with power - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's appeal dismissed on the point of limitation by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Dispute regarding the date of receipt of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appellant's appeal citing limitation as the reason. The order-in-original was passed on 31.12.2012 and received by the appellant on 12.1.2013, exceeding the two-month limitation for filing an appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) could only condone a one-month delay as per the Finance Act, 1994, leading to the appeal being barred by limitation.

2. The main issue was determining the date of receipt of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court precedent established that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delays beyond what is prescribed by the statute. The Revenue presented a postal receipt showing delivery of the order to the appellant on 12.1.2013, with the appellant not disputing the receipt but claiming it was not delivered to an authorized person. The appellant argued for the appeal's limitation period to start from when they procured a copy of the order, challenging the mode of despatch and delivery.

3. The Revenue contended that the correct mode of despatch was followed as there was no dispute about the receipt of the order sent under speed post. They referenced a High Court decision to support their stance. The Tribunal examined the postal receipt showing delivery on 12.1.2013, with the recipient's signature and company seal indicating receipt by an authorized person. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that when delivery is confirmed, the mode of despatch does not affect the situation. The appeal filed on 9.10.2013 was beyond the limitation period and the Commissioner (Appeals) could not condone the delay further.

4. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, concluding that the order was received within the normal limitation period, and the argument about non-intimation of the order by the recipient did not affect the limitation period. The decision was based on the established legal principles and the specific facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and disposal of the stay petition.