2008 (5) TMI 268 - AT - Service Tax

Delay of 482 days in filing Appeal no averment in the Affidavit accompanied by the Delay Condonation Application in regard to the vigilant attitude of the Appellant - lackadaisical attitude of Appellant is evident - nothing transpires from any evidence to reflect the bona fide of the Appellant it is not possible to hold that delay was neither intentional nor mala fide - causes of delay have no any substance - Delay Condonation Application is misconceived so it is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Condonation of Delay Application.
3. Merits of the Appeal regarding Service Tax liability.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Delay in filing the Appeal before the Tribunal
The Appellant filed an Appeal against the Order dated 26-7-06, which imposed Service Tax, interest, and penalty. The Appeal was delayed by 482 days, as acknowledged in the Application for Condonation of Delay. The Appellant, a Private Limited Company, cited reasons for the delay, primarily due to the Signatory's health issues, including cervical spondylitis. The Appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and sought condonation to avoid irreparable loss.

Issue 2: Condonation of Delay Application
The Appellant provided a Medical Certificate and an Affidavit to support the Condonation of Delay Application. The Medical Certificate confirmed the Signatory's health condition, while the Affidavit detailed the circumstances leading to the delay. The Appellant's Advocate emphasized that the delay was unintentional, and the Appellant expected to succeed on merit and limitation grounds. However, the Revenue contended that the delay was deliberate, as the Appellant was aware of the proceedings and the available legal remedies.

Issue 3: Merits of the Appeal regarding Service Tax liability
The Revenue alleged that the Appellant suppressed taxable value of services, leading to evasion of Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, holding the Appellant liable for Service Tax under the Security Agency Service category. The Revenue argued that the Appellant was well aware of the demand and legal options available, making the delay in filing the Appeal unjustifiable. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence demonstrating the Appellant's vigilant attitude towards addressing the issue promptly.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, dismissed the Delay Condonation Application. The Tribunal found the delay unjustified, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions and the Doctrine of Finality in legal proceedings. Consequently, both the Stay Petition and the Appeal were dismissed, upholding the decision of the Adjudicating Authority regarding the Service Tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of diligence in legal matters and the need for timely actions to address legal obligations effectively.