2017 (10) TMI 290 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of one year in filing appeal - the reason for delay was that Appellant was suffering from Jaundice for 3-4 months, the Appellant has attached certain medical certificates also - Held that - there are doubts with regard to the genuineness of the certificates because even the word Lumbar Spondylosis has not been spelt correctly. A Doctor is expected to at least spell a simple word like Lumbar Spondylosis correctly. Secondly, the averments made on affidavit is that the Appellant was suffering from Jaundice and the certificate produced is of Lumbar Spondylosis . Assuming that this is a mistake on the part of the Typist, then also, no application for correction of the same has been filed for the last 4-5 months. There is no explanation for the period 20.09.2015 till 06.01.2016 or for the period 26.04.2016 to 23.09.2016. - delay not condoned - application of COD dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 05.03.2015.
2. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. Genuineness of medical certificates submitted for condonation of delay.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the CESTAT dated 05.03.2015, received on 26.03.2015, beyond the six-month limitation period for filing an appeal. The appeal was filed on 22.09.2016, causing a delay of about one year. The appellant cited attempts to communicate with authorities and arrange funds, attributing the delay to suffering from Jaundice for 3-4 months. However, medical certificates submitted did not support the claim of Jaundice, raising doubts about their genuineness.

2. The medical certificates issued for "Lumbar Spondylosis" contradicted the appellant's claim of suffering from Jaundice. The court expressed skepticism over the authenticity of the certificates due to spelling errors and inconsistencies in the medical conditions mentioned. No application for correction was filed despite discrepancies, and unexplained periods in the timeline further weakened the appellant's case for condonation of delay.

3. The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing the lack of merit due to discrepancies in the medical certificates and failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the court declined to delve into the merits of the appeal, ruling it as time-barred and dismissing it accordingly.