2019 (11) TMI 496 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - service of order - change in email address - address changed to new one - HELD THAT - A perusal of the application does not indicate that any letter in writing was submitted by the Appellant to the Department regarding change of address. Only the change in the e-mail address had been intimated to the Department and this change of e-mail address would not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the postal address had also changed in the meantime. Mere submission of the certificate of registration cannot also be made a ground that the Department should have changed the address of the Appellant. In the absence of any specific communication from the Appellant regarding change of address, the Department was justified in sending the order at the recorded address - This apart, it is also not the case of the Appellant that when the order was sent to the earlier Vasant Vihar address, it was not received by the Appellant. The averments made in the application are not satisfying that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated time - delay Application is, accordingly, rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay Condonation Application for Appeal

Analysis:
The case involved an Appeal filed to challenge an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, New Delhi. The Appeal was initially filed with certain defects, including the failure to file an application for condoning the delay. Subsequently, the defects were rectified, and the delay condonation application was filed. A communication was sent to the Appellant regarding the listing of the delay condonation application for a hearing date. However, neither the Appellant nor their Counsel appeared on the scheduled date. The matter was adjourned to another date in the interest of justice.

Upon reviewing the delay condonation Application, it was revealed that the Appellant had informed the Department about a change in the e-mail address and had filed a certificate of incorporation following a change in the name in December 2018. The Appellant claimed that the order was sent to the old address, causing a delay in filing the Appeal. However, it was noted that there was no written communication submitted to the Department regarding the change of address. The Department was justified in sending the order to the recorded address in the absence of specific communication about the change of address. The Appellant failed to provide essential details such as when the order was received at the new address, which were necessary to support the case for condoning the delay.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons presented in the application that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, the delay condonation Application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing clear and detailed information to support delay condonation requests to establish sufficient cause for the delay.

This judgment highlights the significance of timely and accurate communication with the authorities, as well as the necessity of providing comprehensive details to support delay condonation applications in legal proceedings.