2017 (6) TMI 53 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - relevant date of service of notice - time limit stipulated in Section 35B of the CEA - Held that - the appellant has failed to give satisfactory reason for such an inordinate delay of 948 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, I am not inclined to condone the delay - delay not condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944; Justification for delay; Condonation of delay; Appeal dismissal.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought condonation of a 948-day delay in filing an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.156/2013 dated 2.4.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Bangalore. The appellant claimed non-receipt of the order, leading to the delay. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original in time but was informed later about the rejection of the appeal due to non-compliance with a deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Despite efforts to restore the appeal, it was not possible due to the absence of a provision for restoration post-order issuance.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay was unintentional and attributed to the non-receipt of the Commissioner's order. On the contrary, the learned AR contended that the appellant failed to provide sufficient justification for the prolonged delay. Citing various authorities, the AR emphasized the significance of timely appeals and the consequences of unjustified delays in legal proceedings.

3. Both parties presented contrasting views supported by relevant legal precedents. The AR relied on cases like B.D. Shirke Construction Technology Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai and CC vs. Ashok Kumar to stress the importance of timely appeals and the need for valid reasons for any delay. In response, the appellant referred to cases such as CCE vs. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. and Srijith C vs. CESTAT, Chennai to support their argument for condonation of delay.

4. After evaluating the arguments and considering the precedents cited, the Tribunal, through S. S. Garg, concluded that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the extensive 948-day delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and upheld the dismissal of the appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.156/2013 dated 2.4.2013 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Bangalore.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key aspects of the legal judgment, including the grounds for delay, arguments presented by both parties, reliance on legal authorities, and the final decision of the Tribunal regarding the condonation of delay and appeal dismissal.