2014 (7) TMI 119 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - non-receipt of order - Held that - Delay which is of approximately 604 days is quite substantial in filing appeal before us. Only point which has been forcefully argued by the consultant as well as in the affidavit filed before us by the Secretary of the appellant is that they had not received impugned order nor they have received any letters from the Supdt Office. We find that though the appellant is stating on oath that he has not received copy of the impugned order, there is a contradiction in as much as the acknowledgement card which indicates serving of OIA on the appellant s address is the same where the appellant s office is situated and the address given in the appeal memoranda and said acknowledgment card are the same. We find no proper explanation given. They also stated that the signature or scribbling on the acknowledgement card is neither the secretary nor any of the staff engaged. We are unable to accept the explanation given by the secretary of the appellant co-op society for the simple reason that they have received the hearing notice from Tribunal bearing the same address which is given in the appeal memoranda. In our view, the appellant is not able to convince us that there is a justifiable cause in the delay in filing before the tribunal - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application filed for the condonation of a delay of 604 days in filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant did not receive the Order-in-Original (OIA) dated 4.1.2012, and upon request, the appellate authority provided a copy of the acknowledgment of the receipt of the impugned order. The appellant claimed that the signature on the acknowledgment card was not of the Secretary, and after further communication with authorities, they received a copy of the OIA on 11.9.2013. An affidavit by the secretary of the appellant Co-operative Society stated that they did not receive the OIA or any letters from the department's office. However, the Department Representative pointed out that letters had been sent to the appellant, as evidenced by a letter dated Aug. 30, 2013, mentioning previous correspondence. The acknowledgment card indicated the delivery of the impugned order at the appellant's premises. The Tribunal found the delay substantial and noted the contradiction between the appellant's claim of non-receipt and the acknowledgment card showing delivery to the correct address. The appellant's explanation was deemed insufficient, especially considering they had received a hearing notice from the Tribunal at the same address. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, leading to the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing and the burden on the appellant to provide a justifiable cause for delay. The Tribunal scrutinized the evidence presented by both parties, emphasizing the significance of the acknowledgment card showing delivery at the appellant's address. The appellant's claim of non-receipt was undermined by the correspondence received from the department and the acknowledgment of delivery. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of a convincing explanation for the delay, particularly in light of the contradictory information regarding receipt of documents. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the application and the subsequent appeal serves as a reminder of the strict approach taken towards condonation of delay in legal proceedings, requiring parties to substantiate their claims thoroughly and address any inconsistencies in their submissions.