2008 (9) TMI 183 - AT - Service Tax

Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, bears different signature from the signature on the Appeal papers verification in application is invalid and hence liable for rejection - Delay of 9 moths in filing appeal before lower Appellate Authority lower appellate authority can condone the delay by 30 days beyond the statutory period of 60 days and it cannot hear an appeal filed beyond the condonable time limit - Stay Petition and the Appeal are dismissed as not maintainable

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal, validity of the Verification Clause in the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay, failure to submit a copy of the impugned Order-in-Original with the Appeal papers, statutory time limit for condonation of delay by the lower Appellate Authority.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing the Appeal:
The Appellant sought condonation of a 60-day delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal, attributing it to the initial delay by the engaged Advocate, Shri Sujit Kumar Ghosh. However, a preliminary objection was raised by the Department's representative regarding a variance in the signature on the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay compared to the Appeal papers.

2. Validity of Verification Clause:
The Verification Clause in the Miscellaneous Application was signed by a person misrepresenting himself as a partner of the appellant partnership firm, raising doubts about the authenticity of the document. The discrepancy in the signature and designation of the signatory between the Appeal and the Miscellaneous Application led to the rejection of the condonation of delay request.

3. Failure to submit impugned Order-in-Original:
The Appellants failed to include a copy of the impugned Order-in-Original with the Appeal papers, which is a crucial requirement. The original copy of the Order-in-Original was produced during the proceedings, indicating that it was received by the Party on a specific date. The lower Appellate Authority is bound by a statutory time limit for condoning delays, and in this case, the delay was beyond the permissible limit, making the Appeal untimely.

4. Statutory time limit for condonation of delay:
Under Section 35B, the lower Appellate Authority can condone a delay in filing an appeal by 30 days beyond the statutory period of 60 days. In this instance, the delay was significantly longer than the condonable period, rendering the Appeal not maintainable. The lower Appellate Authority correctly upheld the statutory time limit and dismissed the Appeal, Stay Petition, and the Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, including timely filing of appeals and submitting necessary documents. The decision underscored the significance of statutory time limits and the consequences of failing to comply with them, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal and related applications.