2023 (4) TMI 125 - HC - Service Tax

Appeal Dismissed Due to Delay; Explanations Found Insufficient

Principal Commissioner Central Tax, Delhi South Versus Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd.

The appeal challenging an order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal faced delays in filing and re-filing, with insufficient ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - delay on account of misplacement of some of the file papers in the office which were recovered later on and the matter further got delayed due to oversight and inadvertence - HELD THAT:- Although the appellant had somewhat improved its explanation for the reasons which had led to the delay in filing the present appeal, it is apparent that the same were also wanting in particulars - It is well settled that each day of delay in filing has to be explained. In the present case, there are large gaps in the time period for which no ostensible reason has been provided. The appellant has not only delayed in filing the present appeal but there is also an unexplained and inordinate delay in re-filing the appeal. The above captioned appeal was filed on 31.05.2019. It was returned under objection on 10.06.2019 - there was complete inaction for more than two years and five months. Even if the period commencing from 15.03.2020 is excluded on account of disruption caused due to outbreak of covid 19. There was a period of six months between the date on which the appeal was marked as defective and the date when the lockdown was imposed in the wake of the pandemic. In the case of OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL VERSUS LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. [2012 (4) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court held that it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay as well. The applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal, are dismissed. Issues:1. Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delay.2. Inordinate delay in re-filing the appeal.Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal and application for condonation of delayThe appellant challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, almost 10 months after its receipt. Initially, an application for condonation of delay was filed citing misplacement of file papers and subsequent oversight as reasons. However, the application lacked specificity regarding the period of delay. A revised application was later submitted, detailing the delay due to the bulky nature of the appeal, misplacement of papers, and the process of obtaining necessary documents for the appeal. Despite some improvement in explanation, the court found the reasons provided to be lacking in particulars.Issue 2: Inordinate delay in re-filing the appealAfter the initial filing, the appeal faced multiple setbacks, including missing court fees, incorrect title, and other defects. The appeal was returned under objection and was re-filed with continued defects. Notably, a hard copy was not submitted as required, leading to further delays. Subsequent inaction for over two years and five months, with a significant portion overlapping with the COVID-19 pandemic, was observed. The court highlighted that there was no explanation provided for this extended period of inactivity.In the judgment, the court referenced the case of Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd and Anr., where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing a plausible and acceptable explanation for delays, especially for government bodies. The court noted that condonation of delay should not be granted mechanically, and government departments are obligated to perform their duties diligently. Consequently, the applications seeking condonation of delay were dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as well.