2019 (2) TMI 1109 - AT - Service Tax

Revenue's Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay; Tribunal Emphasizes Need for Justifiable Reasons

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai Versus P.N. Writer & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue, citing insufficient and inadequately explained ... Condonation of delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period of four months - power of Committee of Chief Commissioner to review the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner/ Principal Commissioner - Section 86 (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- The casual approach of revenue in pursuing this matter before Tribunal is evident from the application of “Application for Condonation of Delay” filed by the appellant along with the appeal - From the perusal of the said application it is quite evident that the application has been filed without even specifying the period of delay sought to be condoned or without assigning any substantial reason for seeking such condonation. The sufficient time and opportunity has been given to the Appellant to file and explain the ground for delay in filing the appeal - The only reason that has been stated by the Appellant in their affidavit now filed is that the delay has occurred on account of the reorganization and restructuring of the CBEC on account of introduction of GST. No other ground has been mentioned for seeking such condonation of delay. In the present case when the order in original under challenge was dated 26.03.2018 and was received by the Committee of Chief Commissioners on 25.04.2018, can delay in filing the appeal that was to be filed by 24.04.2018 be attributed to the implementation of GST. GST as stated earlier was implemented with effect from 1st July 2017. In this case the order in original is dated 26.03.2018, i.e. nearly nine months after such implementation. Another interesting feature to be noted in this case is Committee of Chief Commissioner gives an order for review on 23.08.2018, received by the Commissioner on 24.08.2018, i.e. the last date for filing the appeal. When Committee of Chief Commissioner orders for review was received by the Commissioner, that day itself was last day for filing the appeal - This delay in undertaking the statutory obligation caused on the reviewing authority could not be explained in the manner sought to be explained. In the present case no sufficient cause has been shown for delay in presenting the appeal in present case, as is required to be shown in terms of Section 86 (5) of the Finance Act, 1994. In absence of any such justification, there is no merits in the application for condonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay filed by revenue is thus dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Adequacy of reasons provided for the delay.3. Comparison with precedent cases.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The Revenue filed an application seeking the condonation of a 67-day delay in filing an appeal beyond the prescribed period of four months from the date of receipt of the order by the Committee of Chief Commissioners. The relevant dates include the date of the original order (26.03.2018), the date of receipt of the order by the Committee (25.04.2018), the date of the review order (23.08.2018), and the date of filing the appeal (30.10.2018).2. Adequacy of Reasons Provided for the Delay:The Commissioner of Mumbai Central, in an affidavit dated 10th January 2019, attributed the delay to the post-GST restructuring of CBEC, difficulties with the new tax implementation, staff shortages, and work pressure during September and October 2018. The Tribunal, however, found the reasons insufficient and inadequately explained. The affidavit did not specify how the structural changes caused the delay or provide detailed explanations for the period between the order's receipt and the appeal's filing. The Tribunal emphasized that GST was implemented on 1st July 2017, and the order in question was passed nine months later, making the restructuring argument less convincing.3. Comparison with Precedent Cases:The Revenue relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise Versus Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation [2018 (362) ELT 942 (BOM)], where the delay was condoned due to restructuring post-GST implementation. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case, noting that the delay in the Brihan Mumbai case was adequately explained by the shifting of files and jurisdictional changes, which were not applicable in the present case. Additionally, the Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Chief Post Master General & Others vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr [2012 (277) ELT 289 (SC)], emphasizing that government bodies must provide reasonable and acceptable explanations for delays and cannot rely on procedural red-tape as justification.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay in presenting the appeal, as required by Section 86 (5) of the Finance Act, 1994. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also disposed of. The judgment was pronounced in court on 18.02.2019.