2019 (9) TMI 72 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed: Procedural Errors Lead to Rejection.

The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the Appeal due to the Appellant's failure to follow proper procedures, ... Condonation of delay of 1146 days in filing the Appeal - case of appellant is that the Consultant of the Appellant had sent the Appeal by speed post to the Tribunal on 16 April, 2015 and so, the Appellant was under a bonafide belief that the same had been received by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The Appeal has been filed to assail the order dated 15 January, 2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The forwarding communication of the Department which was enclosed with order of the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly mentions that an appeal can be filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act 1944. The address of the Tribunal was also mentioned - when the letter accompanying the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) clearly mentions that an Appeal could be filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at West Block- II, R.K.Puram, New Delhi, the Consultant was not justified in sending the Appeal by speed post to an Assistant Commissioner and that too at an incorrect address. The Consultant cannot be said to be unaware of the procedure. It is also clear that neither the Consultant nor the Appellant made any effort to enquire from the Tribunal whether the appeal that is alleged to have been sent by speed post had actually been received in the Tribunal - No attempt was also made by the Appellant or its Counsel to visit the website of the Tribunal to find out the status of the appeal or seek any enquiry from the Tribunal regarding the filing of the appeal. This amply demonstrates the casual manner in which the Appellant proceeded in the matter - What is also important to notice is that the Appellant has not even disclosed as to on what date the letter sent by the Department was received by the Appellant. There is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Appellant to withhold vital information from the Tribunal. Thus, the facts stated in the application do not convince us that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the Appeal within the stipulated time - application for COD dismissed. Issues:Delay in filing the Appeal, Condonation of delay, Submission of Appeal to incorrect address, Failure to follow proper procedure, Lack of effort to verify filing status.Analysis:The Appellant filed an application to condone a delay of 1146 days in filing an Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellant claimed that the Appeal was sent by speed post to the Tribunal in 2015, but the Department could not trace it due to postal handling issues. The Appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and beyond their control. However, the Department's representative highlighted that the Appeal was addressed to an Assistant Commissioner at an incorrect address, not to the Tribunal. The representative contended that the Appellant failed to make efforts to confirm receipt of the Appeal or track its status, indicating a lack of diligence on their part.The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and noted that the forwarding communication with the order clearly directed the Appeal to be filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at a specific address. It was observed that the Consultant, representing the Appellant, should have been aware of the correct procedure and address for filing. The Tribunal emphasized that neither the Consultant nor the Appellant made any inquiries regarding the Appeal's receipt by the Tribunal or checked its status on the Tribunal's website. This lack of proactive steps indicated a casual approach by the Appellant in the matter.Furthermore, the Tribunal pointed out that the Appellant did not provide crucial details about the Department's recovery proceedings or the timeline of events, suggesting a deliberate withholding of information. The Tribunal found the reasons presented in the application insufficient to justify the lengthy delay in filing the Appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the Appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of following proper procedures, verifying filing details, and actively engaging in the appeals process to avoid adverse outcomes.