2023 (1) TMI 1302 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal - only explanation provided for the inordinate delay in approaching this Court is that after the implementation of the GST Regime, the Indirect Taxes Department has undergone a major reshuffling in terms of the Commissionerates and their respective jurisdiction - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that the GST Regime was rolled out with effect from 01.07.2017 and the impugned order dated 25.01.2018 was passed thereafter. The department was duly represented before the learned CESTAT. The proceedings had emanated from the order in original passed on 31.03.2010, which was carried in appeal by the respondent that was disposed of by an order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and there could be no ground for confusion as to the transfer of jurisdiction of the officer that has passed the order in original. Thus, it is difficult to accept that the appellant was handicapped in any manner in ascertaining the jurisdiction of the relevant Commissionerate. In any view of the matter, this Court is unable to accept that it would be apposite to condone the delay of more than four years on the aforesaid ground. The contention that confusion had persisted for such a long period cannot be countenanced. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal.
2. Impugning two orders passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
3. Whether services rendered by Department of Posts for money transfer were export of services.
4. Implementation of the earlier order dated 25.01.2018.
5. Impact of GST Regime on the delay in approaching the Court.
6. Jurisdictional confusion post-GST implementation.
7. Condonation of delay for more than four years.
8. Dismissal of the application and appeal under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 1471-day delay in filing the appeal. The appeal challenged two orders by CESTAT dated 21.05.2018 and 08.06.2022. The first order held services by Department of Posts as export of services, not chargeable to Service Tax, allowing a refund claimed by the respondent. The second order sought implementation of the first order, which the appellant failed to comply with.

2. The delay was attributed to the reshuffling in the Indirect Taxes Department post-GST implementation, causing confusion in determining the jurisdiction for legal recourse. The appellant claimed difficulty in ascertaining the territorial jurisdiction due to the respondent's absence of an office in India. However, the Court found it unreasonable to condone a delay of over four years based on these grounds, dismissing the application.

3. The Court noted that the GST Regime was effective from 01.07.2017, and the impugned order was passed on 25.01.2018. The appellant was represented before CESTAT, and the proceedings stemmed from an original order in 2010. There was no valid reason for confusion regarding the transfer of jurisdiction, making the claimed jurisdictional uncertainty untenable.

4. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well, as it exceeded the specified period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on the inability to condone the extensive delay and the lack of substantial justification for the delay in filing the appeal.