2018 (9) TMI 386 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - service of order - it is contended that the impugned order was sent to appellant s factory address instead of registered address - Held that - Apparently the delay is inordinate and it is therefore the responsibility of the appellant to explain the delay in a convincing manner without giving any room for suspension as to negligence or nonchalant manner - it is found that the contention that the assessee had responded to statutory notices;had also appeared before the lower appellate authority in response to hearing notices,to be correct which facts are not rebutted by the learned advocate appearing for the assessee. Even though the explanation as offered in the application for condonation of delay is very sketchy but in the substantial interest of justice and going by the plea of the appellant that the issue involved on merits is no more res integra, the delay is condoned subject to the condition of imposing a cost of ₹ 10,000/-, since the explanation or the reasons given is not foolproof. COD Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal due to inordinate delay.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the condonation of delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The delay in question was substantial, amounting to 1380 days. The advocate for the assessee argued that the delay was not intentional, citing reasons such as the impugned order being sent to the factory address instead of the registered address, key personnel resigning without informing management, and the delay in receiving the recovery letter. The advocate relied on several legal precedents to support the plea for condonation of delay.

On the other hand, the Revenue representative contended that the delay was inordinate and not bona fide. It was pointed out that the assessee had responded to statutory notices and appeared before lower authorities, indicating awareness of the proceedings. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision to emphasize the significance of the delay.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides, acknowledged the inordinate delay and stressed the importance of a convincing explanation from the appellant. While noting that the appellant had engaged with the lower authorities during the proceedings, the Tribunal highlighted the need for a genuine and non-negligent explanation for the delay. Despite the sketchy nature of the explanation provided, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to condone the delay based on the substantial interest of justice. A cost of ?10,000 for both years was imposed, payable to the Army Central Welfare Fund in New Delhi, as a condition for condonation. The appeals were scheduled for final disposal on merits, contingent upon compliance with the imposed cost.

In conclusion, the Tribunal granted the condonation of delay, emphasizing the importance of a bona fide explanation and the discretion of the Tribunal in such matters. The imposition of a cost served as a measure to ensure accountability and compliance with the Tribunal's decision.