2015 (8) TMI 105 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Delay of 13days - Medial reason - Held that - Main contention of the applicant is that the impugned order was received by his employee on 21.08.2014 and he had left the job from 15 September 2014; and the proprietor of the applicant firm was not aware of receipt of this impugned order. We find that there is no dispute that the order was served on the applicant on 21.8.2014. The impugned order was misplaced by the employee of the applicant firm. The discretionary powers to condone the delay under the provisions of Finance Act would be exercised when the applicant is vigilant and serious. In the present case, we find that the delay is caused due to negligence and inaction on the part of the employee of the applicant. Hence, the delay of 130 days in filing the appeal can not be condoned. - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case was the condonation of a delay of 130 days in filing an appeal. The applicant, a proprietorship firm, cited the proprietor's eye problem and subsequent unawareness of the impugned order as reasons for the delay. The applicant argued that there was no negligence or inaction on their part, seeking condonation of the delay. On the other hand, the Revenue's Authorized Representative contended that the delay was solely due to the negligence of the applicant's employee and that the proprietor's eye problem existed before receiving the order. The main point of contention was whether the delay should be condoned based on the circumstances presented.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was indeed received by the applicant's employee, who later left the job without informing the proprietor. The Tribunal noted that the delay was a result of negligence and inaction on the part of the employee, leading to the misplacement of the order. The Tribunal emphasized that the discretionary power to condone delays should be exercised when the applicant is vigilant and serious. In this case, the delay was attributed to the employee's negligence, and therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the delay of 130 days could not be condoned.

As a result, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and subsequently dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant. The decision was based on the finding that the delay was primarily caused by the negligence and inaction of the applicant's employee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This judgment underscores the importance of diligence and responsibility in handling legal matters, highlighting the significance of timely actions and the consequences of negligence in the context of condonation of delays in filing appeals.