Application Dismissed: 1471-Day Delay in Appeal Against CESTAT Orders Not Justified Under Section 35 of Central Excise Act.

The court dismissed the appellant's application for condonation of a 1471-day delay in filing an appeal against two CESTAT orders. The first order recognized services by the Department of Posts as export services, exempt from Service Tax, while the second order demanded its implementation. The appellant attributed the delay to jurisdictional confusion post-GST implementation and the absence of the respondent's office in India. The court found these reasons insufficient to justify the delay, leading to the dismissal of both the application and the appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay of 1471 days in filing the appeal.
2. Impugning two orders passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
3. Whether services rendered by Department of Posts for money transfer were export of services.
4. Implementation of the earlier order dated 25.01.2018.
5. Impact of GST Regime on the delay in approaching the Court.
6. Jurisdictional confusion post-GST implementation.
7. Condonation of delay for more than four years.
8. Dismissal of the application and appeal under Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a 1471-day delay in filing the appeal. The appeal challenged two orders by CESTAT dated 21.05.2018 and 08.06.2022. The first order held services by Department of Posts as export of services, not chargeable to Service Tax, allowing a refund claimed by the respondent. The second order sought implementation of the first order, which the appellant failed to comply with.

2. The delay was attributed to the reshuffling in the Indirect Taxes Department post-GST implementation, causing confusion in determining the jurisdiction for legal recourse. The appellant claimed difficulty in ascertaining the territorial jurisdiction due to the respondent's absence of an office in India. However, the Court found it unreasonable to condone a delay of over four years based on these grounds, dismissing the application.

3. The Court noted that the GST Regime was effective from 01.07.2017, and the impugned order was passed on 25.01.2018. The appellant was represented before CESTAT, and the proceedings stemmed from an original order in 2010. There was no valid reason for confusion regarding the transfer of jurisdiction, making the claimed jurisdictional uncertainty untenable.

4. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well, as it exceeded the specified period under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on the inability to condone the extensive delay and the lack of substantial justification for the delay in filing the appeal.

---