2019 (8) TMI 1564 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - justification for delay in filing the appeal present or not - HELD THAT - Though the issue involved in the dispute is less than Rs. 34, 00, 000/- and could well have been disposed of without much ado the submissions need to be considered in the light of contention of the applicant that there has been no delay and hence it is not condonation but maintainability that must be decided. There is no doubt that the impugned order had been dispatched by speed post but that does not necessarily imply service on the addressee as the signature on the delivery manifest does not bear any resemblance to the names of the employees listed in certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It would appear that the mail intended for the applicant had been delivered to an individual whose connection with the applicant is not decipherable. While dispatch suffices to evidence service it is open to the addressee to rebut the presumption with circumstantial evidence of non-delivery. This is not a final disposal of the appeal and there is no determent to anyone in doing so. In the present case we are satisfied that the material on record suffices to hold that appeal has been filed in time and is maintainable. There are no reason to accept the contention of the applicant that the miscellaneous application is infructuous - Registry is directed to list the appeal in its turn for disposal.

Summary

Issues involved:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal, sufficiency of evidence for service of impugned order, maintainability of appeal.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The appellant sought condonation of a nine-month delay in filing the appeal from the date of the impugned order. The appellant contended that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time frame from the date of obtaining a certified copy of the order. The certified copy was obtained by the appellant to comply with recovery pressure. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant argued that the attestation of the certified copy by the official from the first appellate authority indicated receipt on a specific date. The appellant relied on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to support the sufficiency of evidence of receipt for determining the relevant date.

Sufficiency of evidence for service of impugned order:
The Department of Posts, Government of India, informed that the impugned order was dispatched in time and served on the representative of the appellant, as evidenced by a delivery manifest with the representative's signature on it. The Authorized Representative contended that the service of the order on the claimed date should not be disregarded based on the certification by a government agency. The Authorized Representative cited a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & Andhra Pradesh to support the sufficiency of proof of addressing, payment, and dispatch by speed post facility as service within the scope of relevant statutes.

Maintainability of appeal:
The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides regarding the delay in filing the appeal. Despite the dispute amount being less than a certain threshold, the Tribunal emphasized the need to address the contention that there was no delay and, therefore, the issue of maintainability should be decided. The Tribunal distinguished a previous case where lack of service was disputed in a different context. The Tribunal noted that while dispatch of the order by speed post evidenced service, the signature on the delivery manifest did not match the names of the appellant's employees. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal had been filed in time and was maintainable, directing the Registry to list the appeal for disposal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, sufficiency of evidence for service of the impugned order, and the maintainability of the appeal, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made by the Tribunal.