2014 (10) TMI 166 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay in receipt of order - Held that - Postal authority s acknowledgement card is not of delivery of order-in-original to the appellant. The only paper or evidence on which the first appellate authority is relying upon is a print-out of the mail tracking system of the Indian post which indicate that registered letter was delivered to the appellant on 28.03.2013. We also note that the appeal having filed by the appellant on 18.09.2013 before the first appellate authority, while the letter which has been relied upon by the first appellate authority, talks about a complaint lodged with the postal authority on 31.08.2013. We are convinced that the reliance placed by the first appellate authority on such a communication is incorrect to come to a conclusion that appellant had received the order-in-original not on 03.09.2013 but on 28.02.2013; Revenue is also unable to produce the acknowledgement due card of the delivery of order-in-original in the appellant s premises - first appellate authority was not correct in dismissing the appeals on the ground of these being time-barred before him. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned orders and remand the matters back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh on merits of the case and come to a conclusion after following the principles of natural justice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal dismissal on the ground of delay in filing.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad involved the issue of dismissing appeals on the ground of delay in filing. The first appellate authority had dismissed the appeals as they were filed beyond the condonable period. The authority relied on the date of delivery of the order-in-original to determine the filing timeline. However, discrepancies arose regarding the actual date of receipt by the appellant, as the postal authority's evidence was inconclusive. The Tribunal found merit in the argument that the reliance on postal communication was incorrect, citing a similar case precedent. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proper service and lack of acknowledgment in dismissing the appeals solely on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal referred to a previous case where the Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the significance of proper delivery and acknowledgment in legal proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the appellant should not be penalized for late filing if there was uncertainty regarding the actual receipt date of the order-in-original. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the first appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals solely based on the timing issue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the first appellate authority for reconsideration on the merits of the case, emphasizing the need to adhere to principles of natural justice. Ultimately, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair assessment of the case beyond the procedural delay issue.