2015 (11) TMI 337 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Assessee underwent financial sickness and became unviable due to no payment of its dues by the service recipient - Due to such closure, Department was not aware of the address at which the orders would be served on the appellant - Held that - The pitiable condition of the appellant as narrated, deserves consideration since no one prefers to be prejudiced without seeking appeal remedy, facing huge demand ex parte. Appellant reached to Tribunal belatedly for the reasons aforesaid. It appears that the meritorious appeal may be converted into demeritorious one if delay is not condoned. When Tribunal had granted an opportunity earlier making certain observations, it would be proper to condone the delay. - Delay condoned.

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation application, financial sickness affecting operations, non-deliberate delay, ex parte order, appeal remedy, unwarranted demand, delay condonation opposition, stay applications, disposal of appeals, fair opportunity of hearing, repetitive litigation.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses a delay condonation application due to financial sickness affecting operations, leading to non-deliberate delay in seeking appeal remedy against an ex parte order. The appellant faced difficulties as the service recipient did not pay dues, resulting in closure and unknown address for order service. The appellant, claiming bonafide conduct, sought to remedy the unwarranted demand causing hardship to both parties. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's plight and allowed the delay condonation, emphasizing the need for fair hearing and avoiding prejudice without appeal remedy.

The Revenue opposed the delay condonation citing lack of the appellant's last address for order service. However, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's situation and the potential transformation of a meritorious appeal into a demeritorious one without delay condonation. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the delay condonation application to ensure justice and fairness in the proceedings.

Regarding stay applications, the Tribunal directed the appellant to appear before the adjudicating authority within a month to complete readjudication, providing all necessary details and defense without unwarranted adjournments. Failure to comply would result in revenue recovery without Tribunal involvement. The Tribunal aimed to expedite the process, urging the adjudicating authority to issue a final order within three months to prevent repetitive litigation and reduce the burden on the Tribunal, ultimately remanding both appeals with specific directions for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of considering genuine hardships in delay condonation applications, ensuring fair opportunities for appeal remedies, and expediting proceedings to avoid prolonged litigation and burden on the judicial system.