2019 (7) TMI 1685 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 1390 days in filing this appeal - no sufficient cause shown for delay - HELD THAT - The appellant has miserably failed to explain why there was an inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. It is not in dispute that the appellant had received the order dated 15 December 2014 on 22 December 2014. As to who has to take a decision for filing the appeal is an internal matter of the appellant and any alleged failure on the part of the Branch Accountant in informing the Branch Manager about the order cannot be made a ground for condoning this inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months in filing the appeal. This apart when the new incumbent joined in March 2015 it was his duty to have brought the order to the notice of the competent person required to take a decision for filing an appeal. The impugned order dated 15 December 2014 was received by te appellant on 22 December 2014 but the appeal was filed with inordinate delay of 3 years and 10 months. The reasons stated in the application and which have also been reiterated by learned Counsel of the appellant do not make out a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal - COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay of 1390 days in filing the appeal - Condensation of delay application - Reasons for delay inadequately explained.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a delay of 1390 days in filing an appeal, prompting the appellant to seek condonation of the delay. The appellant received the order on 22 December, 2014, but the appeal was filed on 29 March, 2019, causing a delay of about 3 years and 10 months. The appellant attributed the delay to various reasons, including the Branch Accountant's resignation without informing the Branch Manager about the order, office renovation causing misplacement of documents, and subsequent efforts to locate the order upon receiving recovery letters in March 2019. The appellant contended that the delay was unintentional and that immediate steps were taken to file the appeal once the order was discovered.

The Department, represented by the Authorised Representative, opposed the condonation of the delay, arguing that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay. Citing legal precedents, including decisions by the Madras High Court and the Tribunal, the Department emphasized that negligence or lack of diligence cannot justify condoning such substantial delays in filing appeals. The Department highlighted the importance of timely action once the order was received, suggesting that the delay was inexcusable given the circumstances.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the appellant's explanations unsatisfactory, noting the lack of a valid reason for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that internal issues within the appellant's organization, such as the Branch Accountant's actions and the subsequent management of the order, should not have led to such a prolonged delay. Citing legal principles and previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's delay condonation application lacked merit and, therefore, rejected the application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the rejection of the delay condonation application, underscoring the significance of timely compliance with legal procedures and the consequences of unexplained delays in legal matters.