2020 (9) TMI 649 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient reason for condonation of delay given or not - removal of defects including the requirement of pre-deposit - HELD THAT - It is apparent from a reading of the delay condonation application that only casual statements have been made without any details or supporting documents. According to the Appellant, an accountant had been entrusted to file the appeal but since he had suddenly gone on leave, a new counsel was consulted. The Appellant has not stated as to how the Appellant acquired knowledge that the accountant had not filed an appeal. The Appellant has also not stated on which date the Appellant acquired knowledge that the appeal had not been filed by the accountant. We are not impressed by the facts stated in the Application that the Appellant had been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period Application rejected - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.
2. Failure to remove defects as per communication from the Registry.
3. Lack of appearance to press the delay condonation application.
4. Insufficient details and supporting documents in the delay condonation application.
5. Rejection of the delay condonation application leading to dismissal of the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal filed with a significant delay of 180 days, accompanied by an application for condoning the delay. The Registry communicated certain defects, including the requirement of pre-deposit, to be removed by a specified date. Despite the communication, neither the Appellant nor its counsel appeared before the Bench, leading to an adjournment for the Appellant to rectify the defects. The requirement of pre-deposit was eventually satisfied before the next hearing.

2. Subsequently, the Appellant was informed about the listing of the delay condonation application, but on the specified date, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellant to press the application. The matter was adjourned again, but even on the subsequent date, there was no representation from the Appellant to pursue the delay condonation application.

3. The delay condonation application submitted lacked substantial details and supporting documents. The Appellant attributed the delay to the sudden unavailability of the accountant entrusted to file the appeal, necessitating consultation with a new counsel. However, the application failed to specify when the Appellant became aware of the accountant's failure to file the appeal, casting doubt on the reasons provided.

4. The Tribunal found the statements in the application to be casual without adequate specifics or evidence to support the claim of being prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Tribunal was not convinced by the reasons presented in the application and rejected it, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

5. The rejection of the delay condonation application due to insufficient grounds and details resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of providing substantive reasons and supporting documentation when seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings.