2018 (2) TMI 1029 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 1557 days in filing the appeal - non-service of notice u/s 37C of the CEA 1994 read with Section 83 of the FA 1994 - Held that - impugned order has been served on the employee Shri Sudhir Niranjanlal Sharma on 18.1.2013 who has furnished an acknowledgement with regard to receipt of the OIO - the delay on the part of the appellant is hit by the Doctrine of Laches - the explanation for the inordinate delay given by the appellant is not convincing or persuasive. Delay being huge and unreasonable as well as appellant not having been able to put forward sufficient cause for condonation of the same - COD application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 1557 days in filing the appeal. The appellant's representative argued that the impugned order-in-original was not served on the appellant as required by law, as it was served on an ex-employee who had left the company after its closure. The appellant claimed they were not informed about the order and thus could not file the appeal within the prescribed time. The appellant also cited a previous case to support their plea for condonation of delay. On the other hand, the respondent opposed the application, stating that the order was indeed served on the authorized signatory at the time, who is still associated with the company as a director. The respondent argued that the appellant's contention of not being served the order was unfounded. After hearing both sides and examining the documents, the Tribunal found that the order had been served on the authorized signatory who is now a director of the company. The Tribunal invoked the Doctrine of Laches, citing precedents where unexplained and inordinate delays were not condoned by the courts. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's explanation for the delay was not convincing or persuasive. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and upheld the dismissal of the appeal due to the significant and unjustified delay in filing.

This judgment underscores the importance of timely filing of appeals and the requirement for litigants to provide a proper and convincing explanation for any delays encountered. The Doctrine of Laches was applied to emphasize that unexplained and unreasonable delays may lead to the dismissal of appeals. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of a satisfactory cause presented by the appellant for the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The judgment serves as a reminder for parties involved in legal proceedings to adhere to procedural timelines and provide valid justifications for any delays to avoid adverse consequences such as dismissal of appeals.