2022 (4) TMI 750 - HC - Service Tax

Seeking condonation of delay of 1310 days in filing the accompanying appeal - interpretation of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - HELD THAT - It was incumbent upon the appellant to furnish the details with regard to the address at which the impugned order had to be served. The conduct of the appellant who sits quietly for more than three and a half years and not seek information as to the status of its appeal is unacceptable. In any event it is common knowledge of which we take judicial notice that since January 2017 the orders of the Tribunal are uploaded and hence available on its website. The appellant thus cannot take refuge of lack of knowledge or at least means to acquire knowledge concerning the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The reasons given are not tenable in law insofar as explanation of more than three and a half years delay in approaching the Court is concerned. The delay of 1310 days is not condoned - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation in filing appeal challenging Tribunal's order interpreting Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought condonation of a 1310-day delay in filing an appeal against the Customs Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal's order. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision on the interpretation of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The appellant attributed the delay to discovering the Tribunal's order status in 2021, claiming lack of receipt due to the GST regime's implementation in 2017. The appellant's office failed to proactively seek the order status, despite the Tribunal's orders being available online since January 2017.

3. The Court emphasized the appellant's obligation to provide the correct address for order delivery and criticized the delay in seeking information about the appeal status. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the government's duty to diligently perform duties and not exploit delay condonation.

4. Despite the appellant's justifications, the Court refused to condone the 1310-day delay, ultimately dismissing the application seeking condonation.

5. Consequently, with the delay condonation application dismissed, the appeal for interim relief was also closed, and the main appeal was closed as nothing further survived after the dismissal of the delay condonation application.