2016 (9) TMI 1058 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appellants shifted from Bareilly to delhi so could not get to know about the OIO which was sent to their old address of Bareilly and served on the guard or the caretaker, who neither understood importance, nor intimated to the Members of the AOP - appellant has filed this appeal within 90 days from the date of knowledge - Held that - it is found that there is no proper service of the impugned order on the appellant by the service made on the guard/caretaker, who is neither an employee or Member of the AOP, nor an authorized person. Accordingly, in terms of Section 37C of the Act, there is no proper service of the impugned order. We further hold that the appellants have filed appeal within time from the date of knowledge of the impugned order being 3-8-2015. - Delay condoned and appeal admitted

Issues: Condonation of Delay (COD) in filing appeal due to improper service of impugned order.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD, the appellants filed a COD application for condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the appeal. The appellant, an association of persons, had remained in existence from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2006, providing services in Bareilly. After the main member's death, other members shifted to Delhi. The Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter for fresh determination. The appellant argued that due to the shift, correspondences should be made to the new address in Delhi. The impugned order dated 3-11-2014 was sent to the old address in Bareilly and served to a guard/caretaker who was not authorized. The appellants only became aware of the order when visited by a Department inspector on 3-8-2015. They took necessary steps promptly, applying for a certified copy on 10-8-2015 and filing the appeal on 1-10-2015 within 90 days of knowledge. The Tribunal held that there was no proper service of the impugned order as per Section 37C of the Act and that the appeal was filed within time from the date of knowledge, thus allowing the COD application and admitting the appeal.

This judgment primarily revolves around the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal due to improper service of the impugned order. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was not properly served on the appellant as it was sent to the old address in Bareilly and served on a guard/caretaker who was not authorized. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper service under Section 37C of the Act. The appellant successfully argued that they filed the appeal within 90 days of gaining knowledge of the order, demonstrating prompt action upon becoming aware of the situation. The Tribunal's decision to allow the COD application and admit the appeal was based on the finding that the appeal was filed within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge, despite the initial delay in receiving the impugned order due to improper service.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of proper service of orders and the timely filing of appeals within the statutory period. The Tribunal's decision to allow the condonation of delay and admit the appeal underscores the importance of ensuring that parties are duly informed and have adequate time to respond to legal proceedings. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements in legal matters and the need for diligence in addressing issues related to service and timelines in the appellate process.

← Previous Next →