2009 (6) TMI 426 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay Limitation There is 503 days delay in filing appeal due to the Impugned order was received by one of the ex-employ of the appellant. He left the service without bringing to the notice of the appellant the receipt of the Impugned order. The very existence of the impugned order was noticed only by another employee who replaced him. In this case Tri.-(Bang.) held that appellant had given sufficient reason for condonation of delay, COD allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Service Tax. The delay of 503 days in filing the appeal was accepted by both sides. The appellant's advocate argued that the length of delay should not be a crucial factor in this case, citing various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The advocate explained that the delay was caused by an ex-employee who failed to inform the appellant about the impugned order, and similar delays were condoned in previous Tribunal decisions. The advocate also highlighted that the appellant had a strong case on merits, supported by a relevant Circular issued by the Board. The appellant had also promptly approached the Tribunal against the earlier order of the Commissioner. On the contrary, the departmental representative alleged carelessness on the part of the appellant and questioned the explanation given for the delay, citing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found the appellant's reasons for delay to be sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously raised and remanded by the Tribunal, and the lower authority confirmed the same amount as in the first order. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there were valid grounds for the appellant to challenge the order and decided to condone the delay of 503 days in filing the appeal.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient reasons for condonation of delay in filing appeals and highlights that the length of delay may not be a decisive factor. It also underscores the significance of strong merits in the case and previous Tribunal decisions supporting similar circumstances for condonation of delay. The judgment showcases the Tribunal's discretion in considering explanations for delay and the need for parties to diligently pursue their legal remedies.