2010 (1) TMI 470 - AT - Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) -The appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and shall suffer if delay in seeking appeal before the first Appellate authority is not condoned on the ground of time bar. Assessee submitted before the Tribunal that it come to know of order of original authority only in Feb 2008 after Superintendent service tax by telephonic message informed GMTD about tax liability and thereafter it applied on 23.02.2008 for a copy of order dated 31.03.2006. revenue produce dispatch register indicating that order was dispatched by speed post on 6.4.2006. Further officer of assessee who had appeared for personal hearing had not made any submission whether he had made any effort to find out. Held that - in these circumstances claim of assessee was not acceptable and no fault could be found with order of Commissioner (Appeals).

Summary

Issues involved:
- Time-bar for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Claim of lack of knowledge of the order passed by the original authority
- Evidence presented by the Department regarding dispatch of the order
- Vigilant approach of the appellant in seeking appeal condonation
- Applicability of the doctrine of equality before the law in the case

Analysis:
1. Time-bar for filing an appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, noting that the appellant filed the appeal more than 2 years after the order in original was dispatched. The appellant claimed to have known about the order only in February 2008, but the Department produced evidence of dispatch through the extract from the dispatch register. The Tribunal found the Department's evidence reliable and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the belated filing of the appeal.

2. Claim of lack of knowledge of the order: The appellant argued that they were unaware of the order until February 2008 when informed by the Superintendent, Service Tax. However, the Tribunal found the evidence provided by the Department, including the dispatch register and the appellant's appearance for a personal hearing, contradictory to the claim of lack of knowledge, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. Vigilant approach in seeking appeal condonation: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of being vigilant in seeking appeal condonation, highlighting the appellant's lack of proactive efforts to ascertain the status of the order after the personal hearing. The Tribunal considered post-limitation period communications and the lack of evidence showing vigilance on the part of the appellant, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.

4. Doctrine of equality before the law: The Tribunal discussed the principle of equality before the law, emphasizing that all litigants, including the State, should be treated equally. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's casual approach and lack of vigilance did not warrant leniency in condoning the delay, ultimately declaring the appellant remediless before the first Appellate authority due to the delay attributable to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and disposed of the stay petition, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the time-bar for filing the appeal and emphasizing the importance of being vigilant and proactive in legal proceedings to avoid delays and ensure timely compliance with statutory requirements.