2014 (8) TMI 381 - AT - Service Tax

Condonation of delay - Expiry of Director s daughter - concerned employee of the applicant-company left the job without intimating the receipt of the order - Held that - Directors daughter expired on 16.11.2012 at Mangalore. The applicant received the impugned order on 21.2.2013. Hence, the death of the Directors daughter has no relevance for condoning the delay of filing the appeal - No merit for condoning the delay of 196 days involved in the filing of the appeal. Accordingly, the COD application is dismissed - Condonation denied.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay

In this case, the main issue revolves around the condonation of a delay of 196 days in filing an appeal. The applicant, a small enterprise, sought condonation citing reasons related to the death of the Director's daughter and an employee leaving without intimating the receipt of the order. The Director's daughter's death on 16.11.2012 and the receipt of the impugned order on 21.2.2013 were crucial dates in question. The applicant argued that the delay was due to the Director's need to settle family matters after the death, while the Revenue argued that the death had no relevance to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering both sides and reviewing the records, found merit in the Revenue's argument. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided by the applicant were not sufficient to condone the delay. As a result, the condonation application was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application as well.

This judgment highlights the importance of valid reasons and timelines in seeking condonation of delay in legal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the circumstances presented by the applicant, such as the Director's personal tragedy and the employee's departure, were not substantial enough to justify the delay. The decision underscores the need for parties to adhere to procedural requirements and provide compelling justifications when seeking leniency for delays in filing appeals. The ruling serves as a reminder that legal processes must be followed diligently, and delays may not be excused without valid and relevant reasons supported by evidence.