2019 (1) TMI 1558 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal - sufficient reason for delay or not - HELD THAT - The appellant has not explained why they have received the order almost after six months. This apart, the reasons put forward by the appellant is that the assistant dealing with the appeal left from the services on 11.3.2016 without informing about the receipt of the order - When the assistant has left the services, the appellant would have made arrangements and entrusted another person with the duties that were carried on by the assistant who has left. This part, even after the said assistant has left the services, there is a huge delay on the part of the appellant to file the appeal. The contention that the managing director was out of India in relation with organizing trade fair etc. are too flimsy and does not find favor with me. The appellant has not furnished sufficient cause for condoning the delay - There are no sufficient reason condoning the delay - COD Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal

Analysis:
The applicant sought condonation of a 1103-day delay in filing the appeal. The appellant claimed that they received the impugned order on 27.9.2015, but it was not brought to the management's attention as the assistant handling the matter had left without informing about the order. The appellant engaged an advocate for the appeal, assuming they would be updated, but no information was provided. The delay was attributed to these circumstances, including the managing director's absence due to a trade fair. The appellant prayed for condonation of the delay.

The department argued that the impugned order was dated 15.3.2015 and served promptly, contrary to the appellant's claim of receiving it on 27.9.2015. They contended that even after receipt, there was an unexplained delay of 1103 days in filing the appeal. The department asserted that the reasons presented indicated negligence on the appellant's part, lacking sufficient cause for condonation. The department urged for dismissal of the application.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the appellant's claim of receiving the order on 27.9.2015, as the order was dated 5.3.2015 and should have been received promptly. The appellant's reasons, such as the assistant leaving without notice and the managing director's absence, were deemed insufficient to justify the prolonged delay. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and dismissed the condonation of delay application, consequently leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well.