2019 (3) TMI 1227 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 117 days in filing the appeal - Service/communication of order - claim of the appellant is that they have not received the order till it was delivered on 27.8.2018 - Held that - The Revenue is able to establish on the basis of the report of the Postal Department, accompanied with copy of the acknowledgment that the order was delivered to the appellant on 2.12.2017. Thus, the due date for filing appeal was 2.3.2018 whereas the appellant filed the appeal on 10.8.2018. In the affidavit, the appellant has submitted that the work was entrusted to a C.A. but he did not respond in time and also the copy of the order was delivered late to them. There is no valid reason in accepting the submission of the appellant that they have not received the copy of the order as on 2.12.2017. In the result, the explanation furnished by the appellant explaining the delay seems to be not bona fide and attributable to negligence of the appellant. The miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, receipt of order

Delay in filing appeal:
The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of a 117-day delay in filing the appeal before the forum. The appellant claimed that they were unaware of the order-in-appeal dated 28.11.2017, dispatched by Speed Post on 30.11.2017, and only learned about it through a departmental letter dated 15.2.2018. They asserted that they requested a copy of the order on 4.4.2018, received it on 27.8.2018, and filed the appeal on 10.9.2018. The appellant alleged that their bank account was frozen for recovery during this period. The appellant submitted an affidavit supporting their version of events.

Condonation of delay:
The Revenue, in response, presented evidence from the Postal Department indicating that the order was delivered to the appellant on 2.12.2017. The Revenue argued that the appellant's claim of not receiving the order until 27.8.2018 was false, citing the report of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. The Revenue contended that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not valid, attributing it to the appellant's negligence.

Receipt of order:
After considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal found in favor of the Revenue. The tribunal noted that the evidence provided by the Revenue established that the order was delivered to the appellant on 2.12.2017. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay and, subsequently, dismissed the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not bona fide and was due to the appellant's negligence.