2013 (6) TMI 387 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - appeal by DIRECTORATE OF MARKETING AND INSPECTION (DMI) - Held that - There is no explanation for such long gaps in between various actions of the applicant. The appreciation of the entire consequence of events, as reflected in the above application reflects upon the casual approach of the applicant and lapses on their part to take the matter seriously and to file the appeal within the limitation period. In spite of the fact that a draft appeal was vetted in or around July 2008, the actual filing of the same occurred on 17.8.2011 - no justifiable reasons, to condone such a huge delay in filing the present appeal. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the present appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was filed almost three and a half years after the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in 2007. The appellant provided a detailed account of the events leading to the delay, including requests for waiver of penalty, reminders to CBEC, consultations with various departments, preparation of draft appeals, and changes in appointed counsels. Despite these actions, the actual filing of the appeal occurred much later. The Tribunal noted the casual approach and lapses on the appellant's part in taking the matter seriously and filing within the limitation period. The delay was deemed unjustifiable, and the application for condonation was rejected.

The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant, despite clear directions to file the appeal from CBEC and various efforts to prepare the appeal, failed to act promptly. Even after the draft appeal was vetted in July 2008, the actual filing did not take place until 2011. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of valid reasons for such a significant delay and concluded that the appellant's actions reflected a casual approach towards the matter. As a result, the application for condonation was dismissed, leading to the rejection of the stay petition and the appeal on the grounds of limitation.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing appeals and the need for parties to demonstrate diligence and seriousness in legal proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to reject the condonation of delay highlights the significance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal matters to ensure the efficient administration of justice.