2018 (7) TMI 1529 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay of 1434 days in filing the appeal - the delay has not been properly explained - Held that - The Order-in-Original was received on 28.02.2013 by the self same Shri Shamsudhin as has been stated by the appellant applicant in condonation of delay correctly - Tribunal condoned the delay of 129 days and second appeal, on the same issue, delay of 413 days was condoned by their Lordships, and on the same issue, the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 1434 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant was aware of the litigation he has been taking up with the Department on the self same issue from 2004-2005, should have been more diligent filing this appeal in time. The explanation given by the Learned Counsel for the appellant in the application for condonation of delay and affidavit in support thereof, are not acceptable - the delay has not been properly justified - The application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condensation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal for 1434 days.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay of 1434 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant's counsel explained that the delay was due to the serious illness of the accountant, who suffered from cervical spondylitis and arthritis, leading to bed rest and treatment. The appellant also cited difficulties in tracing records from 2008 onwards. The director of the appellant submitted an affidavit supporting these claims. The appellant pointed out a previous case where a delay in filing was condoned by the High Court. However, the Departmental Representative argued that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of the accountant's illness and criticized the explanation for the delay.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the director's affidavit did not sufficiently prove the illness of the accountant. The Tribunal noted that similar delays had been condoned in previous appeals by the appellant. Despite acknowledging the receipt of the Order-in-Original and the challenges faced by the accountant, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant should have been more diligent in filing the appeal on time, given their history of litigation on the same issue. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the explanation provided was not acceptable and dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellant's justification for the delay was not satisfactory, leading to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay and the appeal. The decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence supporting the reasons for the delay and the appellant's previous history of delayed appeals on similar issues.