2014 (9) TMI 1234 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 262 days in filing of the appeal - HELD THAT - The order dated 30th July, 2013 was admittedly received by the appellant on 04/08/13. The appellant admittedly is a proprietorship concern owned by Shri R.P. Pandhi. It is seen that the appellant took about 70 days time in handing over the case papers to their Consultant Shri Vinod Jain and when there was no response from the Consultant, for about one month, no alternate arrangement by engaging other Counsel was made - The Apex Court in another case of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. 2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT has held that the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government and refused to condone 427 days delay in filing of the appeal by the Postal Department. In this case for delay of about three months from 04/08/13 to end of October, 2013 there is absolutely no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed during this period. The conduct of the appellant indicates as if filing of appeal before the Tribunal was the last priority - the delay in filing of appeal is not condonable - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, stay application, service tax demand, penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against an order confirming a service tax demand and imposing penalties on the appellant. The appellant sought condonation of a 262-day delay in filing the appeal due to various reasons. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was justified due to unforeseen circumstances, citing a Tribunal judgment supporting the condonation of delay on payment of costs. The Department opposed the stay application, highlighting the lack of explanation for delays in handing over case papers and taking action. The Department relied on legal precedents emphasizing the need for justifiable explanations for delays in filing appeals.

The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and examined the records. It noted the delay in handing over case papers to the Consultant and the lack of alternate arrangements by the appellant during the delay period. Despite the appellant's reasons for delay related to personal circumstances, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing timely and acceptable explanations for delays in filing appeals. Citing legal judgments, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of adhering to the law of limitation and refused to condone delays without proper justifications.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the delay of about three months in filing the appeal was unjustifiable. It concluded that the appellant's conduct indicated a lack of priority in filing the appeal, leading to the dismissal of the condonation of delay application, stay application, miscellaneous applications, and the appeal itself.