2010 (1) TMI 470

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that against the order in original dated 31-10-2006 (sic) dispatched on 6-4-2006 by Speed Post the appellant has filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) only on 7-4-2008 after more than 2 years. 3. Learned Advocate submits that the appellant came to know of order of the original authority only in February 2008 after the Superintendent, Service Tax by telephonic message informed the GMTD about the tax liability.  Thereafter, they applied on 23-2-2008 for a copy of the order dated 31-10-2006.  For this purpose, he relies on the affidavit dated 21-10-2008 of Shri A.K. Tiwari, DGM Finance GMTD, Jabalpur. The affidavit does not disclose when exactly the Superintendent, Service Tax contacted the appellant by telephone. The affida....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ax somewhere in February 2008 they came to know about the order passed by the original authority appears not acceptable. The evidence produced by the Central Excise Department indicating service by dispatch by Speed Post is reliable. 5. In view of the above, weighing both the evidences sought to be relied upon by the Department and those sought to be relied upon by the appellants, we hold that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant has filed the appeal belatedly and beyond his power of condonation cannot be faulted. D.N. Panda, Judicial Member 6. We are conscious that appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and shall suffer if delay in seeking appeal before the first Appellate authority is not condoned. But ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... An indolent has no right to seek condonation of delay. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the Applicant. We are also conscious of the Apex Court decision in State of Nagaland v. Lipok, AO 2005 (183) ELT 337 where the Hon'ble Court condoned 57 days of dealy on the factual background in the light of legal principles laid down under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. But learned Appellate Authority being a statutory in this case, is required to act within the in-built provisions of limitation under Finance Act, 1994. A....