2018 (8) TMI 1798 - AT - Service Tax

Condonaton of delay of 188 days in filing appeal - HELD THAT - The certificate produced by the appellant is not supported by necessary corroborative evidence and accordingly, the same does not inspire confidence to accept the fact that the appellant was immobile and incapable in co-ordinating with their Counsel in preparation and filing the appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA that delay in filing the appeal can be condoned only when reasonable explanation is furnished justifying the delay and delay should not be condoned when the same is marred by negligence - In the present case, the appellant has failed to substantiate their plea by adducing proper reason and cogent evidences, hence, the delay cannot be condoned - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of six months and eight days in filing the appeal. The appellant's advocate explained that the delay was due to the director of the company being unwell, supported by a medical certificate from a Pediatric Surgeon. However, the Revenue's Assistant Commissioner opposed the application, stating that the certificate did not provide sufficient evidence of the appellant's incapacity to file the appeal. The Revenue relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to support their argument.

Upon considering both sides' submissions, the tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention. The tribunal noted that the certificate provided by the appellant lacked necessary corroborative evidence, which failed to establish the appellant's incapacity to coordinate with their counsel for filing the appeal. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, the tribunal emphasized that delay in filing an appeal can only be condoned with a reasonable explanation, free from negligence. In this case, the appellant failed to substantiate their plea with proper reasons and evidence, leading to the dismissal of the condonation application and subsequently the appeal itself.

In the operative part of the order pronounced in court, the tribunal dismissed the condonation application and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.