2009 (2) TMI 157 - AT - Service Tax

Delay in filing an appeal belated by 214 days It is seen from the records that the Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 was received by the appellant company s representative on 29-3-2007. It is the claim of the applicant company that the said Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 was not placed before the management by the concerned employee. Concerned employees have filed sworn affidavit that the then Manager Administration has received the Order-in-Original dated 27-3-2007 but did not place the same before Management of the applicant company. All of them have stated on oath that the first time the management became aware of the existence of the Order-in-Original was somewhere in and around November, 2007 and after pursuing with the department, the applicant company was served with a copy of order on 5-2-2008 delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal due to the late receipt of the Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
The case involved an application for condonation of delay of 214 days in filing an appeal. The Order-in-Original was issued on 27-3-2007 but was not brought to the management's attention until November 2007. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the negligence of an employee who failed to inform the management promptly. The appellant presented sworn affidavits from responsible employees confirming the delay in informing the management about the order. The Tribunal noted that the revenue acknowledged the employee's resignation and his failure to bring the order to the company's notice. Despite the employee's misconduct, the Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate or strategic on the part of the company. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Officer v. MST Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized the need to do substantial justice and allowed the application for condonation of delay.

2. Dispute over responsibility for the delay and reliance on case laws.
The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and should be condoned. They cited various case laws to support their position. On the other hand, the Joint CDR contended that the company should be held responsible for the negligence of its employee. She relied on specific case laws to argue against the condonation of delay. After considering both parties' submissions and perusing the records, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the delay was not deliberate and decided in favor of condoning the delay.

3. Application of legal principles and decision.
The Tribunal applied the principles of substantial justice and the elasticity of the term 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Quoting the Supreme Court's stance on condoning delays to serve the ends of justice, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of deciding cases on their merits rather than technicalities. They highlighted that the delay was not deliberate and that the employee's actions should not be attributed to the company as a whole. Ultimately, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay and directed the registry to list the stay petition for disposal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the appeal, the responsibility for the delay, the application of legal principles, and the decision to condone the delay based on the principles of substantial justice and fairness.