TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and justified in dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the plea of non-communication of the impugned order to the trustee cannot be considered as sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal?" 3] On 21st April 2012, the Additional Director, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai Zonal Unit-III issued a show cause-cum-demand notice to the appellant requiring the appellant to show cause as to why it should not be made liable to pay service tax for operating commercial training or coaching center, which service was taxable under the provisions of Finance Act, 1994. The Additional Commissioner of Service Tax (II), not satisfied with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant came to know of the disposal of the appeal only after receipt of letter dated 16th November 2017 issued by the jurisdictional office, Division-V, informing that their appeal has already been rejected. Mr. Raichandani submits that the Trustees of the appellant the rafter searched the office record and found the order-in-appeal dated 13th February 2017. Mr. Raichandani submits that service of order-in-appeal upon staff of the appellant does not amount to valid service upon the appellant, which is a Charitable Trust. In any case, he submits that this is a case of a bona fide communication gap and therefore, delay ought to have been condoned. He submits that the decision in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that the order-in-appeal was duly served at the office of the appellant on 20th July 2017. Even the appellant admits that the order-in-appeal was so received by some staff member of the appellant Trust. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there was no communication of the order-in-appeal to the appellant, merely because such order, may not have been personally served upon the Trustees of the appellant. The service of the order-in-appeal at the appellant's registered address, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, constitutes valid communication for the purpose of period of limitation for filing of appeal to operate. 9] Despite the aforesaid, we note that the delay in institution of appeal was of only 102 days. The r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as required to be condoned in the facts of the present case. It does appear that there was a serious communication gap. Besides, as noted earlier, the appellant is a Charitable Trust. Upon cumulative consideration of all these factors coupled with the fact that the delay was of only 102 days, a case had been made out for condonation of delay. 12] In N.Balakrishnan (supra), the Apex Court has held that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the doors against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there ....